yahoo_league_players

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent behavior; the description adds valuable operational context: a hard 25-per-page cap with pagination via 'start', an explicit auth requirement, and a prominent caveat that the documented response shape is unverified and should be inspected at runtime. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a punchy phrase, and the response-shape block, caveat, example, and auth note are each purposeful. While the return shape is lengthy, it compensates for the lack of an output schema and is clearly separated into labeled sections.

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?

Given the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety traits, the description supplies the remaining essential context: pagination behavior, auth setup, an approximate return shape, and an explicit warning about unverified vendor documentation. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and inspect the payload sensibly.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, including enums, defaults, and per-parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat those details. The description's example and pagination note add usage context but not new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's existing explanations.

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 identifies the resource ('player pool') and the distinguishing scope: availability filtering (free agents/waivers/all) for add/drop decisions. This separates it from sibling tools like yahoo_team_roster and yahoo_player_stats by emphasizing league-wide availability rather than roster or individual player stats.

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 clear context for when to use it — as the 'add/drop shortlist' for fantasy availability — making the intended use obvious. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops slightly short of the top criterion.

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