yahoo_sports_tennis_schedule

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden well by disclosing that this endpoint always returns the current full-season snapshot and performs no server-side filtering. It also identifies the underlying source as Yahoo's server-rendered tournaments page. It could add more detail about freshness, response shape, or external constraints, but it is already unusually transparent for a zero-parameter read-only fetch.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence names the resource, the second details the response contents, and the third addresses invocation constraints. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or unnecessary context.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what data is returned, where it comes from, and what limitations exist. The most likely agent errors, such as adding season/gender parameters or expecting a filtered result, are proactively prevented. No relevant invocation detail is missing.

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?

Even though the input schema is empty, the description adds valuable meaning by explicitly stating that the endpoint takes no parameters and why: filtering happens client-side, not server-side. This prevents an agent from inventing parameters or expecting season/gender arguments. The current-full-snapshot framing clarifies what the response represents.

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/resource (returns the full-season tennis tournament calendar) and lists the concrete fields an agent can expect. It is explicit that this is tennis-specific and schedule-related, which distinguishes it from the Yahoo_F tennis rankings, scoreboard, team schedule, and other sports schedules among 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?

The description clearly conveys when this tool is appropriate: for a full-season tennis tournament schedule, and it explicitly warns that season/gender/match filtering cannot be done via this endpoint because filtering is client-side. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like rankings or scoreboard, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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