yahoo_life_home

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the source ('Yahoo Life's own server-rendered homepage') and the returned fields, suggesting a read-only, fixed feed. However, it does not mention item count, ordering, freshness, or any fetch-time considerations such as page-load/sanitization behaviors, which are useful for a no-annotation scraping-backed endpoint.

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 short, focused sentences contain every necessary fact: scope, output fields, and data source. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it very fast for an agent to parse.

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 zero-parameter read-only feed tool with no output schema, the description is complete: an agent knows exactly the result shape ('feed: title, destination URL, and thumbnail image') and the source. The absence of output schema is fully compensated by this explicit description of return fields.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no param details to document. The description correctly adds no parameter noise and simply clarifies what the no-argument call returns, which is all that is needed here.

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 'Yahoo Life homepage story stream,' giving a specific resource scope, and then states the action ('Returns') and the exact output fields (title, destination URL, thumbnail image). This is clear enough to distinguish from other feed tools by content topic, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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?

Usage context is implied through the name and resource description: this tool is for the Yahoo Life homepage feed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling feed tools (e.g., yahoo_entertainment_home, yahoo_news_home), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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