yahoo_sports_team_roster

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return payload's scope (full roster) and content (specific fields), plus the source page, which goes beyond the schema. It stops short of specifying response shape, error handling, or freshness, but for a read-only fetch the key traits are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the action and payload fields, and the team-slug guidance is actionable. The enumerated league list is long and duplicates the schema, but it communicates multi-league support without forcing the agent to open the schema; minor redundancy only.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (full roster with listed fields), which leagues are accepted, and how to source the team slug—enough to invoke correctly. The main gap is the exact response structure, but the field list mitigates that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable semantics for `team`: it explains that a team slug comes from scoreboard/standings responses and gives concrete examples like `green-bay` and `la-lakers`. The league enum is duplicated in the description, which reinforces but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the tool's function—'Returns a team's full roster'—and specifies the exact data fields (position, jersey number, status, injury, physicals, college, experience). By naming the source (sports.yahoo.com's server-rendered roster page) and listing many leagues, it differentiates from siblings like mlb_team_roster, espn_team_roster, and sofascore_team_players.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly establishes the input requirements: a `league` from the supported enum and a team slug, with explicit guidance to obtain the slug from scoreboard or standings responses. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know this is the Yahoo roster lookup.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.