yahoo_search_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that results are fetched from Yahoo's server-rendered image-search page and that dimensions are included only when available. Even so, it does not mention pagination, result-count limits, failure behavior, or how many results are returned, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 and front-loaded: it states the action in the first sentence and then provides the return-field list and source context in two efficient sentences. There is no unnecessary repetition 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 single-parameter, read-only search tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the source, the return fields, and the availability caveat for dimensions. The main omission is a statement about result count or pagination, but at this complexity level the description gives an agent enough context to call the tool and interpret its output.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter, 'q', as 'Search query', giving 100% schema coverage. The description references 'a query' but adds no new meaning or syntax requirements beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Yahoo image results'), and details exactly what the output contains: title, direct image URL, hosting page, source domain, thumbnail, and dimensions. This clearly differentiates the tool from broad Yahoo search and alternative image-search engines like bing_images or duckduckgo_image.

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 conveys the basic context: use this tool when you want Yahoo's image-search results for a query. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use yahoo_search for general web results' or 'use bing_images for Bing image results.' The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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