yahoo_news_comment_replies

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses pagination behavior, sort order support, and the specific output fields (author, body, reaction counts, pin status). For a read-only list tool, this is strong behavioral transparency without unnecessary detail.

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 core function is front-loaded and compact, covering result fields, sort, and pagination in one dense sentence. The opener 'Yahoo News comment replies' duplicates the tool name, and the sourcing remark 'Sourced from Yahoo's own comment platform gateway' adds little for an agent deciding how to invoke it, so only one point is lost.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned data and pagination mechanism, while the schema provides all parameter-level context. The main gap is the missing connection to the sibling workflow: an agent also using yahoo_news_comments would receive the parent comment_id but the description does not state this explicitly.

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 already covers all five parameters with helpful descriptions, including the cursor-only-from-previous-response semantics and the origins of comment_id and content_id. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it sits at the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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 specifies an exact verb and resource: 'Returns a page of a comment's replies,' and lists the data returned (author, body, reaction counts, pin status). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling yahoo_news_comments by targeting replies to a specific comment rather than top-level comments on an article.

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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'a comment's replies' and the required comment_id/content_id, so an agent can infer it should be called to fetch replies to an existing Yahoo News comment. However, the description does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over yahoo_news_comments or how to first obtain the required comment_id, leaving routing partially to inference.

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