yahoo_autos_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavior context: it says the feed is sourced from Yahoo Autos's server-rendered section pages and uses page-based pagination. It does not describe behavior for invalid categories, missing pages, or rate/limit issues, but the basic read-only feed behavior is visible.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, the returned fields, pagination, and data source in three short sentences. The first sentence 'Yahoo Autos section story stream' is a bit redundant with the second, but the structure remains efficient.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters, the description conveys the return fields, pagination, and data source. It is not fully complete because it does not tell the agent what valid category values look like, and there is no output schema to fill that gap or provide examples.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little value for parameters: the required category parameter remains vaguely described as 'Yahoo Autos section' with no allowed values or examples, and page is only minimally covered by the schema.

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 and resource: it 'Returns a Yahoo Autos section's editorial story feed' and names the payload fields (title, destination URL, category, thumbnail image). This makes the tool clearly distinct from siblings like yahoo_autos_article and yahoo_autos_home without opening their schemas.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for section-level editorial feeds with page-based pagination. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative comparison such as 'for the Yahoo Autos home feed use yahoo_autos_home instead.'

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