yahoo_entertainment_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the readable resource and enumerates the returned fields. However, it does not mention failure behavior for invalid URLs, potential missing fields, response format, rate limits, or any other runtime traits, leaving room for agent uncertainty.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then detail the output fields and input requirement. Every sentence adds necessary information and no filler is present.

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 read tool, the description provides enough output-field detail and input source context, especially given the small input schema. The absence of an output schema means the field enumeration is useful, though exact response structure and error behavior are not described.

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 the URL parameter with 100% coverage, and the description augments it by prescribing a canonical www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ article URL and connecting it to the home or category story streams. This added guidance goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 a single Yahoo Entertainment article's full content, with the verb 'Returns' and the resource scope 'Yahoo Entertainment article.' It further enumerates the exact fields returned, and the reference to a 'canonical www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ article URL' distinguishes it from sibling Yahoo article tools in other sections.

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 indicates the tool should be used with a canonical article URL, especially one produced by the home or category story streams, giving a clear workflow context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the domain-specific URL pattern makes the selection reasonably obvious.

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