yahoo_sports_team_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the data source, the scope of returned data, and hints at parity with the scoreboard response. However, it does not address rate limits, pagination, auth needs, or data gaps like upcoming-playoff-game availability, which could be relevant for an agent making a production call.

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 opening phrase 'Yahoo Sports team schedule' is a bit redundant with the tool name, but everything after it earns its place. The detailed league enum list is necessary because the schema lacks an enum, and the sentence teaching the agent how to fetch a team slug is high-value. Overall it is dense and readable.

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?

With no schema output, the description provides enough expectations by saying the schedule will have 'the same per-game fields as the scoreboard', which ties the return format to an existing sibling tool. Covering both required parameters and the data origin makes the tool usable, though it could be more explicit about the return structure or any pagination behavior.

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?

The schema's property descriptions are generic ('League key', 'Yahoo Sports team slug'), but the description adds concrete value: it enumerates all 26 accepted league values (with proper hyphenation) and goes beyond saying 'team' by explaining that the slug comes from scoreboard or standings, with examples like 'green-bay' and 'la-lakers'. This is exactly the non-obvious information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb 'Returns' and a specific resource: a team's full schedule, including its scope (regular season plus any already-played/scheduled playoff games) and its source (sports.yahoo.com's server-rendered team schedule page). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like yahoo_sports_scoreboard, yahoo_sports_standings, and yahoo_sports_team.

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 gives clear context for when the tool should be used — when you want a specific team's full schedule — and instructs the agent to get the required team slug from the scoreboard or standings response. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context is sufficient to route correctly.

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