yahoo_search

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it states the output normalization (decoded destination URL, never the raw click-tracking redirect) and the source ('server-rendered search page'). This URL-decoding guarantee is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to set correct expectations. It omits minor details like rate limits or empty-result behavior, but covers the most important quirks.

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, each earning its place: purpose plus return fields, the URL-decoding caveat, and the data source. The most important scoping sentence is front-loaded, and there is no extraneous or boilerplate text.

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 correctly carries the return value information (title, destination URL, description, hostname, pagination), which it covers. Given that this is a straightforward 3-parameter search tool, it is near-complete; the only gap is leaving time_range's accepted values undocumented in both schema and description.

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 3. The description adds 'page-based pagination', which reinforces the page parameter, and implicitly ties the query string to the result shape. It does not add meaningful detail about time_range value formats or any other parameter beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Search Yahoo web results' — and precisely enumerates the output fields (title, destination URL, description, hostname, page-based pagination). This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like yahoo_search_images, yahoo_search_news, yahoo_search_videos, and yahoo_search_local, which are all Yahoo-specific but different modalities.

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 strong focus on 'Yahoo web results' plus the detail that results come from Yahoo's 'own server-rendered search page' make the intended use case — general Yahoo web search — clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., images/news/videos variants) or name alternatives, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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