yahoo_sports_golf_leaderboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the data is pulled from Yahoo's public tournament-leaderboard JSON API, that a single golf tournament's results are returned, and it spells out the complete 'fixed stat set.' This makes the read-only, external nature of the call clear.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The first sentence names the tool's purpose, the second lists the full return contract, and the third explains where to source the required parameter. Every sentence contributes indispensable information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates: it lists the returned fields, the upstream dependency for the id, and the external source API. The season parameter's semantics are already in the schema, so nothing necessary for a correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by giving a concrete example of the tournament id (`golf.e.23`) and explaining that the id originates from the golf-schedule endpoint, which helps the agent construct valid calls.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one golf tournament's full leaderboard' and enumerates exactly what data is included (rank, to-par, status, etc.). This clearly distinguishes the tool from schedule or scoreboard siblings, and the concrete field list removes ambiguity about its scope.

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 gives a direct chaining instruction: 'Get the tournament id from a golf-schedule response's id field.' This tells the agent where the required parameter comes from and how to proceed. It doesn't name the sibling tool or state any exclusions, but the guidance is already actionable.

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