yahoo_my_teams

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds critical context: return shape is unverified from vendor docs and may be approximate, plus notes the awkward nested structure. It also mentions auth requirements. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 informative and structured: it starts with purpose and key value (team_key), includes return shape, notes unverified shape, gives example, and auth info. Some redundancy but each part adds value. Not overly verbose.

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?

The description provides return shape (unverified), example, auth note, and warns about nested structure. No output schema exists, so this compensates well. It could mention potential errors or limits, but given the tool's simplicity and good annotation coverage, it's fairly 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage: gameKeys is described as required comma-separated, format is 'Leave as json.' The description adds an example ('gameKeys': 'nfl') which helps but doesn't significantly exceed schema. Schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool provides the authenticated user's own fantasy teams, and highlights that it returns team_key needed for writes. This is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like yahoo_my_games and yahoo_my_leagues, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 usage: it's for getting the user's teams and especially useful for obtaining team_key before writes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the example and focus on team_key guide usage. It lacks explicit alternatives.

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