yahoo_player_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description goes well beyond that by providing an approximate return shape, a rate-limiting batching hint, auth requirements, and a caveat that the shape is unverified—valuable context for an agent.

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 with a summary, return shape, example, and auth note. It's detailed but each part contributes useful information. It could be slightly trimmed (the return shape is verbose), but overall it's efficient and clear.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides an approximate response shape, a usage example, auth requirements, and batching advice. It addresses all key aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly, making it highly complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example of playerKeys and type, and emphasizes batching, which helps an agent format the request correctly. This is a modest but useful improvement over the schema alone.

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 stats for one or more players for a season or week, which is specific and distinguishes it from team/league-level tools. The example and batching note reinforce its exact purpose, making it unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (player stats) and includes a batching tip for rate limits. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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