Yahoo similar / recommended symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by indicating the output includes similarity scores and that no crumb is required. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 three sentences long, each providing essential information: what the tool does, when to use it, and a technical note. No wasted words. The example is succinctly integrated.

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 fully covers its functionality, usage, and a helpful example. It mentions the structure of results (similarity scores) and a specific technical requirement (no crumb needed). No gaps.

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?

Schema already describes the single required parameter 'symbol' with type and example. The description adds a concrete usage example ('Example: { symbol: "AAPL" }'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds meaningful extra context.

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 returns symbols Yahoo considers similar to a given symbol, with similarity scores. It uses specific verb 'returns' and resource 'symbols similar to given one'. Among siblings like yahoo_quote and yahoo_search, this tool's purpose is distinct and well-articulated.

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 says 'Use for peer/comparable discovery', providing clear usage context. It also mentions 'Does not require a crumb', a technical differentiator from some other Yahoo tools. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives.

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