yahoo_health_article

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates that the operation is a read returning content and fully lists what is returned; however, it doesn't discuss failure modes, authentication requirements, rate limits, or explicitly confirm absence of side effects beyond the semantically implied 'Returns.' This is a moderate but not severe gap.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and return content list, followed by the single input requirement. Every sentence adds use and clarity, with no repetition of the schema or waste.

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 one-parameter reader with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential body content, return fields, URL domain, canonical-ness, and even URL sourcing from the sibling stream tools. It is complete enough to ground an agent's invocation, although it doesn't spell out a semantics for invalid or non-canonical URLs.

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 covers the parameter completely ('Canonical health.yahoo.com article URL'), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining where canonical URLs can be obtained (home/category story streams) and implicitly tying the URL to the exact article to fetch, which adds value beyond 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: 'Returns a single Yahoo Health article's full content.' It names the exact resource (single article) and enumerates the fields (title, description, author, publish/update time, section, image, keywords, original publisher, body paragraphs), making it crisp and distinguishable from home/category stream tools and other Yahoo article tools.

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?

It explicitly says the input must be a canonical health.yahoo.com article URL and even tells the agent where such URLs can be found: 'one returned by the home or category story streams.' This gives enough context to decide when to use the tool, although it doesn't formally list alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use yahoo_health_home for the stream instead.'

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