yahoo_my_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: authentication requirements (YAHOO_CLIENT_ID, YAHOO_CLIENT_SECRET, or YAHOO_REFRESH_TOKEN) and an explicitly flagged caveat that the response shape is unverified vendor documentation and should be inspected before relying on field names.

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 usage guidance, followed by a detailed return shape and caveat. The 'Example: The user's games' line adds little value and could be removed, but overall the content is dense and not redundant.

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 simple zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains the return shape, warns that the shape is unverified, specifies the auth need, and places the tool in the overall workflow. This is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 the single format parameter already documented as 'Leave as json; Yahoo serves XML otherwise.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so 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 states the tool returns the fantasy games the authenticated user plays, using a specific verb-like framing ('Which fantasy games... plays'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly marking itself as the starting point that provides the game_key needed by other Yahoo tools.

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 strong contextual guidance: 'START HERE — everything else needs a game_key from this.' This clearly tells the agent when to use it first in a Yahoo fantasy workflow, though it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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