yahoo_team_roster

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context. It warns that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, discloses auth requirements (YAHOO_CLIENT_ID, etc.), and explains that is_editable false leads to write failures for future writes. This transparency about limitations and semantics goes well beyond the structured fields, aiding the agent in setting expectations correctly.

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 dense but well-structured with clear labels ('Returns:', 'NOTE:', 'Example:', 'Auth:'). Each section serves a distinct purpose: core definition, return shape, caveat about unverified data, illustrative example, and authentication notes. While lengthy, the organization prevents it from feeling wasteful, and the front-loaded first sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose. A slight deduction for the verbosity of the return shape, which could overwhelm some agents.

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 takes full responsibility for explaining the return shape, providing a detailed breakdown of the response structure. It covers auth, usage example, and a critical caveat about the unverified shape. This is a complex API (Yahoo fantasy), and the description thoroughly equips the agent to parse and use the response, including edge cases like is_editable locks.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is a 3. The description adds value through a concrete example ({"teamKey": "449.l.12345.t.3", "week": 1}) and clarifies the meaning of 'week' in the context of lineup changes ('the current week is what a lineup write changes'). This goes beyond the schema's minimal field descriptions, though that added insight is modest given the schema already covers the essentials.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'A team's roster for a week — who is started, benched, and in which slot.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like yahoo_team and yahoo_team_stats by focusing on lineup/bench/slot details, and the phrase 'read that precedes every lineup write' further clarifies its niche. This is unambiguous and specific, going beyond a generic restatement of the name.

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 provides clear usage context: 'The read that precedes every lineup write' and explains that is_editable false means the week is locked, implying when the tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X' for edge cases like team info or stats. Since the sibling list includes similar Yahoo tools, the lack of explicit alternatives keeps it slightly short of a 5.

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