yahoo_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the normalization of results, the exact fields returned, page-based pagination, the click-tracking redirect decoding, and that results come from Yahoo's server-rendered page.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second enumerates the return fields and pagination, and the third explains the redirect-decoding behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies inputs, output fields, pagination, and a critical transformation (decoded URLs). It gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 describes both parameters (q and page) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It mentions query string and pagination in passing but introduces no new syntax or value constraints beyond the schema, fitting the baseline.

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 the specific verb and resource: 'Search Yahoo web results.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling search engines (e.g., google_search, bing_search, duckduckgo_search) by explicitly naming Yahoo and detailing the normalized result fields (title, destination URL, description, hostname).

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 makes it clear this tool is for Yahoo web searches and highlights the unique decoded-destination-URL behavior, which is a helpful selection criterion. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for deciding when to use this tool.

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