yahoo_team_matchups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by warning that the return shape is unverified from vendor docs and by noting 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 well-structured with a purpose line, return shape, caveat, example, and auth note. It is longer than average, but the unverified-shape warning and authentication details earn their place. The purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat is important.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by providing a vendor-documented return shape, even with an explicit caveat that it is approximate. It also includes an example and auth instructions, making the tool sufficiently understood for a simple one-parameter call.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds a concrete example teamKey format ('449.l.12345.t.3') beyond the schema, which helps an agent construct valid calls. The format parameter is also documented as 'Leave as json.'

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 identifies the resource: a team's full season of matchups, including opponents, results, and weekly scores. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yahoo_team_roster and yahoo_team_stats by focusing on matchups, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need a team's season-wide matchup schedule and results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as yahoo_team_stats or yahoo_league_scoreboard, and provides no exclusions.

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