yahoo_game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds valuable context: it explicitly warns that the return shape is from vendor docs and has NOT been verified against a live response, and instructs to inspect actual payloads. It also discloses authentication requirements (YAHOO_CLIENT_ID etc.), which is beyond what annotations provide. This is strong behavioral transparency given the annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first line defines the purpose, followed by the return shape, then example, then auth note. The shape note and auth note are useful and earn their place. Slight verbosity in the dream shape note, but overall tight and well-structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (metadata lookup) and has a clear input schema, annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the return shape (as a note pending verification), provides an example, and discloses auth requirements. Given the tool's simplicity and existing structured fields, the description is comprehensive enough. The only gap is not explaining pagination or multiple game responses, but that's minor for a metadata-only call.

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 description coverage is 100% (both format and gameKey are described in the schema). The description adds meaning to gameKey by listing acceptable values ('nfl', 'nba', 'mlb', 'nhl', or numeric id like '449') and noting it's part of the URL path. The description also shows a JSON example with 'gameKey'. Since the schema already covers parameters well, the description's additional usage details push it slightly above baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Game metadata for a sport-season' and lists the specific fields returned (season year, whether it is over, and the game_key). It explicitly mentions 'the game_key other calls need', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like yahoo_my_games or yahoo_league that serve different purposes. The description also includes an example and return shape, making it highly clear.

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 provides an example usage ('Current NFL season' with 'gameKey': 'nfl') and notes that the game_key is needed by other calls, implying this is a prerequisite step. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives (siblings like yahoo_my_games might be used for user-specific data). Still, the context is reasonably clear for the primary use case.

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