yahoo_health_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context: the feed is from Yahoo Health's own server-rendered section pages, suggesting the content is as published on the site and may include pagination. However, it does not disclose failure modes (e.g., invalid category), how the page parameter behaves at bounds, or whether the feed is dynamic or cached.

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 three sentences, the first being immediately useful, the second defining the output fields, the third contextualizing the source. It's efficient with no major redundancy, though 'some content' could be made more specific about what the section field accepts.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by naming the returned fields. However, it lacks details on how category parameters map to actual Yahoo Health section names, whether the page parameter is unlimited or capped, and how errors look (empty feed for bad category). This is enough to call the tool correctly in a normal case but not minimal for edge-case handling.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the concept of 'page-based pagination' but does not add syntax or valid values for the category parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a Yahoo Health section's editorial story feed' with detailed fields (title, destination URL, category, thumbnail image) and page-based pagination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like yahoo_health_article and yahoo_health_home by scoping to section feed.

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 identifies it as a section story stream and explicitly notes its data source (server-rendered section pages), which implies when to use it: when the agent needs category-specific story listings. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as yahoo_health_home or yahoo_health_article, so it is a single exclusion short of ideal.

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