yahoo_shopping_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the data source (the retailer's shopping.yahoo.com store page's structured product data), the fixed scope of the result set, and that it is not a keyword search. It does not discuss failure modes, caching behavior, or availability limitations, but for a simple single-retailer lookup that is a minor gap.

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 efficient and front-loaded. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second defines the output fields, the third gives the data source and scope, and the last provides the needed prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, with no 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?

Given a single required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned, what the result set represents, where the data comes from, and how to obtain the required store slug. The tool is simple and the description covers everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already documents 'store' as the retailer slug from GET /yahoo-shopping/stores, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces this by instructing the agent to find the slug via GET /yahoo-shopping/stores, but it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool returns one retailer's current deals on Yahoo Shopping and enumerates the exact fields returned for each offer: product title, direct retailer product URL, image, brand, currency, price, and sale price. It also differentiates this from a keyword search tool, which helps distinguish it from similar shopping siblings like yahoo_shopping_stores.

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 concrete practical guidance by telling the agent to use GET /yahoo-shopping/stores to find a retailer's slug before using this tool. It also clarifies that this endpoint returns a fixed set of currently-featured deals rather than a keyword search. However, it does not explicitly name alternative shopping/search tools or state when to prefer them over this one.

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