yahoo_search_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it meets it well. It reveals that results come from Yahoo's server-rendered news-search page rather than the portal, and it discloses the important click-tracking redirect behavior, including that URLs are decoded. These are exactly the kinds of hidden behaviors an agent would not know without this description.

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 economical: four sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information. The purpose is front-loaded, the return fields support it, and the disambiguation and redirect behavior are kept at the end without flooding the main intent.

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 with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent everything it needs to invoke the tool, states what the result items contain, and explains the URL transformation behavior. No pagination or rate-limit details are essential for a basic query tool, and no critical behavior is omitted.

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 100% of the single parameter, q, as a search query. The description adds little beyond that, only restating the notion of a query. Since the schema already fully documents the one parameter, the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Yahoo news results.' It then enumerates the exact return fields, making the tool's function unambiguous. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the yahoo-news family, so an agent can separate this tool from related siblings without needing to infer.

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 clearly identifies the intended context: searching Yahoo's news-search product rather than the Yahoo News portal. It names the yahoo-news family as a distinct product, giving the agent a meaningful comparison point. It stops short of explicitly stating all conditions and when-not-to-use cases, so a small gap remains.

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