yahoo_search_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data source ('Yahoo's own server-rendered video-search page'), the implicit read-only nature, and a concrete list of returned fields (title, destination page URL, source domain, description, thumbnail, duration). It does not cover pagination or ordering but these are minor for a single-query search tool.

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 with the essential purpose. The second sentence restates part of the first ('Yahoo's video-search results') while adding valuable return-field detail, so the redundancy is minor and the overall size is appropriate.

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, low-complexity tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it states the purpose, lists the return fields, and names the source. The lack of pagination or result-limit details is a small gap but not a significant one for a video-search query tool.

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 already fully documents the only parameter, q, with the description 'Search query', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about query format, escaping, or non-normalization, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('Yahoo video results'), and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling video-search tools like bing_videos, google_videos, or duckduckgo_video, but it is unambiguous about the engine and content type.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives such as yahoo_search, google_videos, or bing_videos. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or fallback conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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