yahoo_league_scoreboard

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the response shape is unverified from vendor docs, advises inspecting the actual payload, explains projected points are included, and states auth requirements. This is substantial behavioral context with no contradiction of annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides a structured return shape, caveat, example, and auth note. It is somewhat long due to the inline JSON shape, but each block serves a purpose; minor redundancy in the vendor-docs caution keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 a detailed return shape, explicitly flags that the shape is unverified, provides a usage example, and tells the agent how auth is configured. It is unusually complete for an API wrapper, especially given the provider-specific complexity.

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%, with leagueKey and week already described as required URL path parts. The description adds only a concrete example and does not significantly extend parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'One week's matchups with both teams' points — live during a week, final after.' This clearly identifies the tool as a weekly fantasy scoreboard and distinguishes it from standings or roster tools. The name 'yahoo_league_scoreboard' is directly reinforced rather than merely restated.

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 gives clear context: it is for one week's matchups, with live/final points, and notes that projected points are what 'an in-week win-probability read needs.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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