Raw Yahoo Fantasy API GET

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares the tool read-only, indicating non-destructive behavior, but offers no details on error responses, rate limits, authentication, or response format. For a simple raw GET tool, this is minimally sufficient but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the key concept ('Escape hatch'), provides a clear example, and states the read-only nature. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, usage scope, and safety. It could briefly mention expected response format (e.g., JSON) but is otherwise adequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 single parameter 'path' has a schema description, and the tool description adds an example and clarification that the path is relative to /fantasy/v2/. This enriches the schema information. However, there is no further elaboration on path syntax or constraints beyond the requirement to start with '/'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is an 'escape hatch' for raw GET requests to the Yahoo Fantasy Sports API, covering paths not handled by dedicated tools. It provides a concrete example path and explicitly labels the operation as read-only, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings.

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 explicitly directs use to paths not covered by dedicated tools and includes a representative example. It clearly states the tool is for GET requests only ('Read-only'), but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives beyond implied exclusivity.

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