yahoo_team_stats

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the returned shape comes from vendor docs and is unverified, authentication with a Yahoo key is required, and stat_id resolves via yahoo_game_stat_categories. This goes beyond the 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 well-structured with a short purpose statement, return shape, caveat, example, and auth note. Each section serves a clear function, and the most important caveat about unverified vendor shape is prominently highlighted.

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 embedded return-shape definition and stat_id cross-reference are essential and mostly sufficient. The auth requirement, example call, and caveat about payload reliability make this a fairly complete description for a small 3-parameter stats fetch.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's example ('{"teamKey": "449.l.12345.t.3", "type": "season"}') adds a realistic key format, but it does not explain the broader enum values such as 'date', 'lastweek', or 'lastmonth'.

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 that the tool provides a team's aggregated stats and includes a detailed return shape, which differentiates it from roster/matchup/player-stat tools. It lacks an explicit active verb like 'fetch' or 'list' and only mentions season/week even though the schema also supports date, lastweek, and lastmonth.

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 phrase 'team's aggregated stats for a season or a week' gives contextual reason to use it, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or name any excluding cases. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools such as yahoo_team_roster, yahoo_team_matchups, or yahoo_player_stats.

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