yahoo_tech_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read/retrieval nature, the scope ('single article'), and the concrete return payload. It does not discuss failure modes or edge cases, but for a simple fetch-by-URL tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every part earns its place: the resource, the returned fields, and the URL acceptance criteria are all useful and non-redundant.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate: it identifies the input format, states the restriction to canonical article URLs, and enumerates the output fields. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and know what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the url as a 'Canonical tech.yahoo.com article URL.' The description adds value by specifying the source of valid URLs (home or category story streams), which helps an agent know what kind of input is expected.

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 clear verb and resource: it 'returns a single Yahoo Tech article's full content' and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, description, author, timestamps, section, image, keywords, publisher, body). This distinguishes it from yahoo_tech_home, yahoo_tech_category, and other article-type siblings by name and subject.

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 practical guidance by saying it accepts a canonical tech.yahoo.com article URL 'such as one returned by the home or category story streams.' This implies the natural workflow without explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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