yahoo_news_suggest

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the result is a flat list (not nested/structured), it is sourced specifically from Yahoo News's search box, and it contains completed news search terms. It doesn't address edge cases like empty matches or short-query behavior, but for a simple read-only suggest tool this is a reasonable disclosure level.

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 sentences totaling about 24 words, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the output shape glossed in the second. There is zero filler, and no sentence repeats schema content or annotation data.

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 2-parameter tool with no nested objects and a fully covered schema, the only missing piece is the return value description, and the description supplies that: 'a flat list of suggested news search terms.' Minor omissions such as unspecified behavior for extremely short inputs or locale assumptions do not prevent correct invocation.

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% — the schema already documents q as 'Partial search query to autocomplete' and count with default and clamping behavior. The description's phrase 'for a partial query' merely echoes the schema's wording and adds no extra meaning. Baseline of 3 applies because the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair: 'Returns Yahoo News's own search-box autocomplete suggestions for a partial query.' The qualifier 'Yahoo News's own' explicitly contrasts with sibling general autocomplete tools like yahoo_search_suggest or bing_suggest, and the output shape ('a flat list of suggested news search terms') pins down exactly what the agent receives.

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 phrase 'Yahoo News's own search-box' gives implicit routing context — this is distinct from general Yahoo web suggest (yahoo_search_suggest) or other domain suggest tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of the highest rating, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for news-scoped autocomplete.

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