yahoo_autos_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns the full article content and lists exactly which fields are included. It also discloses the input requirement (canonical URL). While it doesn't mention failure modes or read-only behavior explicitly, for a simple content fetcher this is sufficient and does not hide any surprising side effects.

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 two sentences and front-loads the purpose, then lists the exact content fields and input requirement. It is concise with no fluff, though the first sentence could be considered slightly redundant with the tool name, but the field enumeration and URL guidance justify its existence.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the output fields, the input type, and the canonical URL source. An agent knows what to provide and what to expect in return. Missing details such as error behavior or how to handle non-Autos URLs are minor for this straightforward fetch tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying what constitutes a valid 'canonical' URL and providing a concrete source example ('such as one returned by the home or category story streams'). This gives the agent useful guidance beyond the schema's simple 'Canonical autos.yahoo.com article URL'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a single Yahoo Autos article's full content'), and explicitly enumerates the fields returned (title, author, body paragraphs, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like yahoo_autos_home and yahoo_autos_category by specifying 'single article' and 'canonical autos.yahoo.com article URL', making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to use the tool: when you have a canonical autos.yahoo.com article URL, specifically one returned by the home or category story streams. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., other yahoo_*_article tools), but the domain and input type make the intended use clear.

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