yahoo_league_draft

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable context: the return shape is unverified vendor documentation, actual payloads should be inspected, and auth requires the user's own YAHOO_CLIENT_ID, YAHOO_CLIENT_SECRET, or YAHOO_REFRESH_TOKEN.

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 fully lead with a one-sentence summary, followed by a clear but somewhat verbose response shape, an explicit unverified caveat, an example, and an auth note. Each element has a purpose, and the shape is useful because no output schema exists.

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 output schema, the description supplies the vendor-documented response shape, an example call, and an honest caveat that the shape should be treated as approximate. That is adequate for a simple read-only endpoint and avoids over-claiming on unverified details.

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 input schema already documents leagueKey as required and part of the URL path, and format as 'json'. The description only reinforces leagueKey through the example `{"leagueKey": "449.l.12345"}` and adds no new syntactic or behavioral detail about parameters.

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 opening line, "Draft results — every pick in order with round, team and player," clearly identifies the resource and the exact data returned. It distinguishes this tool from other yahoo_league_* tools even though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch.'

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 this tool is for fetching Yahoo league draft results, but it never states when to prefer it over other yahoo league tools or whether it applies only to particular league types. It mentions an example and auth, but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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