yahoo_sports_team_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a server-rendered page and returns scoreboard-style fields, but it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or any limitations. For a straightforward read-only tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 core purpose, followed by source and return-field details, and concludes with input acquisition guidance. The main inefficiency is the full enum list, which duplicates the schema, but the structure remains logical and scannable.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is returned (full schedule with same fields as scoreboard) and how to find valid team slugs. It stops short of detailing return-field specifics, but references to the scoreboard imply those are known or obtainable, which suffices for this context.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that the team slug comes from scoreboard/standings responses and provides concrete examples (e.g., 'green-bay', 'la-lakers'), going beyond the simple 'Yahoo Sports team slug' schema description. The repeated enum list is redundant but reinforces allowed values.

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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'a team's full schedule', including regular season and playoffs. It also specifies the data source and that fields match the scoreboard, distinguishing it from related tools like yahoo_sports_scoreboard or yahoo_sports_team_roster.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need a specific team's schedule) and provides guidance on how to obtain the team slug from scoreboard or standings responses. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like scoreboard for daily results, but the clarity of purpose and the input-format hint are sufficient routing cues.

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