yahoo_game_roster_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are partly redundant with the description's read-only framing. The description adds valuable context: the response shape is from vendor docs and NOT verified against live responses—an important caveat. It also explains how to interpret the shape, which supplements the annotations. No contradiction.

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 well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then gives the response shape, then a caveat, then an example. All sentences add value. The example could be clearer (it shows a request-like object without clarifying it's an example), but overall it's efficient.

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 (2 params, no nested objects), and the description covers purpose, usage, auth, response shape, and unverified status. The output schema is absent, but the description provides the return shape explicitly, compensating. The caveat about unverified shape is particularly valuable for an agent. Missing: no info on error cases, but that's beyond expectation.

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% (format and gameKey both have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics for gameKey via the NFL example and explains how the response is used, which goes beyond the schema. It doesn't add much on format, but that is trivial. The response shape explanation adds value.

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 what the tool does: 'The roster positions a game defines (QB, RB, FLEX, BN, IR…)'. It specifies the resource (roster positions) and the purpose (needed to build a valid lineup write). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like yahoo_game or yahoo_team_roster by focusing on the game-level roster positions, not team rosters or game metadata.

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 usage when building a valid lineup write, and provides an example call for NFL. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is fairly clear: this tool is for retrieving game-level position definitions. The auth note clarifies prerequisites. Could be improved with explicit exclusions.

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