yahoo_league_teams

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds important context by warning that the return shape is from vendor documentation and has not been verified against a live response, and it explains the authentication requirement via 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 structured with purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. It is somewhat dense due to the inline nested JSON shape, and the 'SHAPE FROM VENDOR DOCS' note is repeated in the following paragraph, but every section earns its place.

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 provides a detailed approximate return payload, highlights operationally important fields, warns about reliability, gives an example invocation, and states the auth requirement. This is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke the tool reasonably and set expectations.

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 fully documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example leagueKey value ('449.l.12345'), reinforcing the league-key format beyond the schema's 'part of the URL path' explanation.

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 'Every team in the league with its manager' and clarifies the core use case: 'how you map team_key to a person.' It names the resource and the returned scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like yahoo_team or yahoo_league_standings.

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 when to use the tool — when you need a league-wide team-to-manager mapping — and gives an example input. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as yahoo_team, yahoo_my_teams, or yahoo_league_standings.

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