yahoo_league_settings

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses auth requirements, explicitly warns that the response shape is unverified vendor documentation, and advises inspecting the live payload before relying on field names. This is genuinely useful behavioral context that helps the agent avoid overconfidence.

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 well structured: directive, return shape, caveat, example, and auth each occupy a clear section. The return shape block is long but justified because there is no output schema; no sentence feels wasted.

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 compensates by providing a detailed return shape, a reliability caveat, an example, and auth notes. It does not cover error cases or explicitly compare with sibling yahoo league tools, but those are non-essential for a read-only settings tool with strong annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The example `{"leagueKey": "449.l.12345"}` reinforces the expected format but does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as a league-settings reader by enumerating the content: roster slots, scoring weights, waiver type, trade deadline, and playoff structure. It would be stronger with an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get,' and it does not directly contrast with sibling league tools, but the scope is unmistakable.

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 instruction 'Read this before proposing anything' is an explicit usage cue, and the paragraph about `uses_faab` adds a concrete decision-relevant context: an agent must know waiver behavior before claiming. It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which prevents a 5.

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