List your leagues for a game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes a read-only operation (listing) with no destructive hints. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or error cases. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description is fairly complete. It does not explain return format, pagination, or error handling, but given the absence of output schema and sibling tool context, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Only one parameter with no schema description. The description adds examples of valid game keys (e.g., 'nfl', 'nba') which adds meaning beyond the type string. However, it does not fully define the parameter format or constraints.

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 lists leagues for a given game key with examples, and the action (list) and resource (leagues) are explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like yahoo_get_my_games by focusing on leagues.

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 implies when to use (have a game key, need to list leagues) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The context of sibling tools provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks exclusion criteria.

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