yahoo_league_standings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, so the description rightly focuses on additive value: a detailed (if unverified) return payload shape, an explicit caveat that the shape is from vendor docs and should be inspected at runtime, the auth requirement referencing specific env vars, and a usage example. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 content is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by the return shape, caveat, and example. While the JSON blob is long, it is clearly valuable given the absence of an output schema, and the unverified-shape warning is important. It is organized and justifiably sized.

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?

For a read-only standings query with no output schema, the description provides an approximate return structure, a prominent verification warning, example input, and authentication details. The only gap is a lack of explicit error/edge-case notes (e.g., invalid league key behavior), but for this complexity level it is quite complete.

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 reasonable descriptions for both params (format: 'Leave as json.'; leagueKey: 'League key. Required — part of the URL path.'), putting this at baseline 3. The free-text description adds a concrete example value but doesn't meaningfully elaborate param semantics beyond the schema, which already carries the load.

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 sentence, 'Standings with each team's record, points for/against and playoff seed,' specifies the resource (standings) and its contents with an implied 'get/return' verb. It distinguishes itself from siblings like yahoo_league_settings or yahoo_league_teams by enumerating exact fields, though it stops short of naming alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied through the description and the included example call ({"leagueKey": "449.l.12345"}) and auth env-var guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative tool (e.g., no mention of yahoo_league_teams for rosters). The auth note hints at prerequisites but not when this tool is preferred.

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