yahoo_life_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes what the tool returns and what input it accepts, making the read-only nature reasonably inferable. However, it does not state whether the operation is purely a read, what happens on invalid URLs, whether any auth is needed, or how errors are handled. Given zero annotation support, it is missing some behavioral transparency.

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 compact and uses the first sentence to orient the reader, then provides a useful enumeration of the article fields, then the input constraint. There is a slight redundancy in the opening phrase 'Yahoo Life article content' and the sentence that follows, but it is short and immediately scopes the tool.

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 retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it lists the returned content fields, which compensates for not having an output schema, and it clearly restricts inputs to canonical lifestyles URLs. Missing details like expected error behavior or null-return semantics are minor, given how narrow the tool is.

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 with high specificity, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a valuable semantic clue by mentioning the URL type ('such as one returned by the home story stream'), which tells the agent where to source a valid URL from the sibling home stream tool. This workflow hint goes beyond what the schema says, even if the phrase is a mild repetition of 'canonical www.yahoo.com/lifestyle article URL.'

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 opens with a clear identification of the resource ('Yahoo Life article content') and then states with a precise verb and object: 'Returns a single Yahoo Life article's full content.' It enumerates the exact article fields (title, author, publish time, etc.), which distinguishes it from the many sibling article tools like yahoo_news_article or yahoo_tech_article. No ambiguity about which resource is targeted.

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 says to pass a canonical www.yahoo.com/lifestyle article URL, and it points to a concrete upstream source: 'such as one returned by the home story stream.' That implies a clear workflow coupling with yahoo_life_home. It provides useful context for when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use other article tools.

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