yahoo_news_home

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so reasonably: it declares a read operation ('Returns...'), lists the exact response fields, and explicitly names the source ('Sourced from Yahoo News's own server-rendered homepage'), telling the agent this reflects live homepage content rather than a search or API layer. It omits ordering/size nuances but for a zero-parameter read tool that gap is minor.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, field payload, then source provenance. Every clause earns its place. Minor deduction because the first sentence partially restates the tool name and the 'need to know' phrasing is stylistic rather than informative, but the structure is front-loaded and compact.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden and mostly meets it: it discloses the return values (seven named fields), the scope (homepage 'need to know' stream), and the provenance (server-rendered homepage). It stops just short of full completeness by omitting ordering, cap on story count, and freshness behavior, which a caller might reasonably expect.

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?

There are no parameters, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 in this case. The description correctly avoids inventing adjustable inputs; there is nothing to document beyond what the empty schema confirms.

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 predicate-resource combination: 'homepage story stream' backed by a concrete field list (title, destination URL, summary, source, publish time, comment count, thumbnail images). It distinguishes itself from siblings like yahoo_news_article, yahoo_news_category, and the other Yahoo *_home tools by anchoring on the homepage, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 rather than stated. An agent can tell this is for retrieving the Yahoo News front-page feed, but the description never names alternatives or conditions ('use yahoo_news_category for vertical category stories'; 'use yahoo_news_article for a single story'), and with zero parameters the usage shape is simple. Since the when/when-not guidance is absent, this is at the minimum viable level.

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