yahoo_autos_home

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the information source—'Yahoo Autos's own server-rendered homepage'—and the fields returned, but it does not mention output shape, whether the feed is paginated, or any rate-limiting behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences that do their job: the first names the resource, the second details the return fields. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and no unrelated context.

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 zero-parameter, read-only feed tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent everything essential: what it returns and where the data comes from. The absence of comments about array shape or pagination is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and zero required fields, so the schema coverage is complete and there isnothing unknown for the description to compensate for. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Yahoo Autos's homepage editorial story feed'), and explicitly lists the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yahoo_autos_article and yahoo_autos_category, which target different content scopes.

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 makes the tool's purpose easy to infer but does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of the sibling article or category tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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