yahoo_shopping_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by specifying the exact output shape (title, description, author, publish/update time, section, image, keywords, body paragraphs) and the input constraint of a canonical URL. It does not mention error cases or read-only status, but for a simple fetch tool the behavioral disclosure is adequate and well beyond a bare verb phrase.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and output details, while the second provides necessary input context. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential return fields and the input domain, which is largely complete. It could add error/edge-case expectations or an explicit 'this is a read-only operation,' but those are minor gaps for a simple article-retrieval tool with the purpose this clearly stated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying what kind of URL is expected — 'canonical shopping.yahoo.com article URL, such as one returned by the home or category story streams.' This helps the agent infer the correct URL format and provenance, providing meaning beyond the schema's short 'Canonical article URL' description.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a single Yahoo Shopping article's full content.' It also enumerates the exact fields returned (title, description, author, etc.), so an agent knows precisely what the tool does. The mention of 'one returned by the home or category story streams' differentiates it from sibling list/stream tools like yahoo_shopping_home and yahoo_shopping_category.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to fetch full article content given a canonical shopping.yahoo.com URL. It implicitly tells the agent that article URLs come from the home or category story streams. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'when you already have a URL' context is clear.

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