yahoo_news_comment_replies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination behavior (cursor-based), the fields returned, and the data source. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, reversibility, or what happens if the comment has no replies. It also does not describe the pagination response format (e.g., next_cursor) beyond the cursor parameter existing. This is partial transparency but leaves notable gaps.

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 two sentences: the first states the resource and output fields, the second adds provenance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema details or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds context without bloating.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by listing the output fields (author, body, reaction counts, pin status) and specifying pagination behavior (cursor-based). It does not spell out the exact response JSON structure (e.g., array vs object) or error conditions, but for a straightforward reply-fetching tool this is fairly complete. The schema covers required and optional parameters clearly, and the description provides the missing output flavor.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., count 'default 10, clamped to 1..50', cursor 'from a previous response's next_cursor'). The tool description mentions 'sort order and cursor-based pagination' but that merely echoes the schema. It does not add additional meaning about parameter relationships or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters well.

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 starts with the noun phrase 'Yahoo News comment replies' and then uses the verb 'Returns' to state the specific resource: a page of a comment's replies, listing author, body, reaction counts, pin status, sort order, and cursor-based pagination. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that fetch articles, authors, or top-level comments. The reference to /yahoo-news/comments in the schema further distinguishes it from the parent-comment tool.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving replies to a specific comment, with the comment_id sourced from /yahoo-news/comments (stated in the schema). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate. The 'Sourced from Yahoo's own comment platform gateway' line establishes provenance, which helps with trust. It never says 'use this instead of X', so it misses the explicit when-not guidance, but the scope is unambiguous.

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