yahoo_team

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: it requires explicit authentication keys (noting the environment variables) and warns that the response shape is based on vendor documentation and has not been verified against a live response, advising users to inspect the actual payload. This goes beyond the 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 description is well-structured with clear sections (general description, return shape, notes, example, auth). It is not overly verbose, though it includes a detailed return shape that could be considered lengthy, but it's necessary given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides the expected return shape, notes the uncertainty (vendor docs vs. verified), includes an example, and covers authentication. It lacks detailed explanations of each field's meaning, but that's acceptable given the scope. Overall, it offers sufficient context for a developer to use the tool.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (format and teamKey). The description adds an example of teamKey's format, reinforcing the schema's description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the example adds a bit more clarity, warranting a 4.

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 that the tool returns metadata for a single team, listing the specific fields (name, manager, waiver priority, etc.). This distinguishes it from other yahoo_team_* tools (like roster or stats) by focusing on metadata, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other team-related tools (e.g., yahoo_team_roster, yahoo_team_stats). It only describes what it returns without contextualizing its use case or alternatives.

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