yahoo_news_comments

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that only top-level comments are returned, includes sort order and cursor-based pagination, and correctly reflects the read-only nature of the operation. It adds sourcing provenance ('Yahoo's own comment platform gateway'), which adds context, but it does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, so I do not award a 5.

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 — a two-sentence resource line plus a short provenance line. There is no filler, and key information about pagination, ordering, and top-level scope is front-loaded. The provenance sentence is a nice-to-have but not essential, so it's not as tight as a pure 5.

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?

The description gives a reasonable mental model of the return type and pagination, despite the lack of an output schema. It misses, however, a note about the companion tool yahoo_news_comment_replies and does not explain where to obtain the content_id (the schema says 'returned by home/category/article' but the description doesn't). For a complete call, an agent still has to gather its content_id source from the schema; that's an uncovered gap.

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 baseline is already a 3. The description mentions 'sort order' and 'cursor-based pagination', which loosely echo the sort and cursor parameters, but it does not explain their values or relationships beyond what the input schema already states. Thus the description adds minimal semantic value over the structured schema.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Returns', and pinpoints the exact resource: a page of an article's top-level comments. It also names the returned fields (author, body, reaction counts, reply count, pin status), and the 'top-level' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling tool yahoo_news_comment_replies without opening any schemas.

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 tells the agent what the tool does but never explicitly says when to choose it over alternatives. An agent can infer from 'top-level comments' that yahoo_news_comment_replies covers the nested replies, but the routing is not made explicit as it is in a more assertive description. No exclusions or prerequisite steps are stated.

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