yahoo_shopping_stores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool is read-only ('Returns') and specifies the item fields and scope ('each retailer with a dedicated store page'), which covers the main behavioral expectations for a zero-parameter directory tool. It omits notes on pagination, rate limits, or auth, but those are less critical for this simple listing endpoint.

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 brief and puts the meaningful content in the second sentence, including the output fields and the follow-up usage of a slug. The opening phrase 'Yahoo Shopping retailer store directory' is a mild repetition of the tool name, but the overall length is well controlled and front-loaded enough for an agent.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what the endpoint returns, which retailers are included, the exact fields, and how the returned slugs are consumed by another tool. An agent can invoke this tool without needing any additional context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; it instead explains the output and the downstream use of a returned slug, which is the only 'parameter-like' concept here.

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 ('Returns') and a well-defined resource ('Yahoo Shopping's retailer store directory'), and enumerates the exact output fields: slug, display name, and logo image. It distinguishes itself from the sibling yahoo_shopping_store by indicating that this is the directory while the other endpoint consumes a slug for store deals.

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 implies this is used to fetch the store directory and obtain slugs, then explicitly directs the agent to use GET /yahoo-shopping/store with a slug to read current deals. It does not explicitly state 'use this for listing stores and not for deal lookup', but the cross-reference makes the intended workflow clear enough.

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