yahoo_sports_tennis_rankings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data origin (server-rendered rankings page), what is returned, and the lack of player IDs. However, it omits details like rate limits, freshness, pagination, or failure modes, which leaves non-trivial behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: a lead-in, the returned content, and a critical constraint. Every sentence carries useful information and is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only ranking tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it specifies the parameter choices, the output shape, and a data caveat. It could further describe pagination/limit behavior or explicit formatting, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 only says 'Rankings type' and has no enum defined. The description is what actually turns this into an actionable parameter by listing the four accepted values (mens-singles, womens-singles, mens-doubles, womens-doubles), giving the agent exactly what it must pass.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns an ATP/WTA singles/doubles tennis ranking list, enumerates the output fields (rank, points, player name, country, age), and pins the source to Yahoo Sports' server-rendered rankings page. This clearly distinguishes it from related tennis schedule and scoreboard siblings.

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?

Clearly communicates the exact accepted type values and a key constraint (no stable player ID available), which guides correct invocation. It does not explicitly route users away from alternative tools, such as saying 'use scoreboard for match results,' so the guidance is implicit rather than exhaustive.

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