yahoo_search_local

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly explains the location-resolution behavior, the source (Yahoo's server-rendered local-search page), and the return payload fields. It doesn't note auth requirements, pagination, or rate limits, which are common gaps, so it loses a point.

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 appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the core result ('Yahoo local business results') before explaining source and the return fields. Every sentence contributes meaningful information and no redundant restating of the name.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description fully explains how to construct the query, what to expect back, and where the data comes from. There is no output schema but the return fields are enumerated in the text. Nothing essential is missing.

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 covers the single parameter q with its description, and the tool description reinforces that q must include location intent. With 100% schema coverage and one parameter, the description adds meaningful usage context but doesn't need to add more. Baseline 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 states the search verb and resource explicitly, and distinguishes this tool from the sibling yahoo_search (its generic counterpart) by specifying local-business-search results and the specific return fields (name, category, price range, address, phone, open status, rating, review count). The scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says location is resolved from the query text itself, with an example, rather than a coordinate parameter, and clarifies that queries should be formed like a user typing into Yahoo's local search box. This differentiates it from coordinate-based or separately-parameterized local search tools.

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