yahoo_entertainment_home

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some behavioral context: the phrase 'Sourced from Yahoo Entertainment's own server-rendered homepage' indicates a scraping-based read operation rather than an API. However, it does not disclose behavior such as feed freshness, number of stories returned, pagination, or whether the feed is cached, which an agent might need to interpret results.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct value: the resource, the return fields, and the data source. Minor redundancy ('Yahoo Entertainment' appears three times) prevents a perfect score, but there is no wasted content and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 it is a zero-parameter, no-output-schema feed retrieval, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (four fields) and where it comes from (server-rendered homepage). An agent can invoke it correctly with no further information; only minor details like result count or update cadence are absent, and those are non-critical for a no-input 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?

There are zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4 and the description has nothing to explain. The description correctly implies this is a no-argument feed fetch, and no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 a precise resource ('Yahoo Entertainment's homepage editorial story feed'), and enumerates the returned fields (title, destination URL, category, thumbnail). It clearly identifies itself as the homepage feed, which is distinct from siblings like yahoo_entertainment_article and yahoo_entertainment_category, though it never names them explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives. There is no mention that yahoo_entertainment_article should be used for a single story or yahoo_entertainment_category for category-specific stories, so an agent must infer the right selection from the name alone.

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