yahoo_tech_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns a read-only story feed, uses page-based pagination, and is 'Sourced from Yahoo Tech's own server-rendered section pages,' which is useful context about data origin and scraping behavior. It does not cover error conditions or access requirements, but for a simple feed fetcher this is reasonably transparent.

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 three short sentences and every sentence carries information: a terse label, the feed contents and pagination, and the data source. It is slightly repetitive with 'Yahoo Tech section' appearing twice, but there is no filler or wasted wording.

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 2-parameter feed tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return fields, pagination, and source. It does not describe the response envelope (e.g., how the list is wrapped, how to detect the last page), but an agent can invoke the tool and interpret results with the information given. This is near-complete for tools of this complexity.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters: category is a Yahoo Tech section enum, and page is a 1-based integer defaulting to 1. The description reinforces the pagination behavior and ties category to the section feed, but adds no additional constraints or format details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Returns a Yahoo Tech section's editorial story feed,' and enumerates the exact output fields (title, destination URL, category, thumbnail image) and pagination. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling feed tools like yahoo_tech_home (home feed) and yahoo_tech_article (single article) by identifying the resource as a section-scoped stream.

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?

Usage is implied through the phrase 'Yahoo Tech section story stream,' which signals this is the tool to call when an agent needs stories from a specific Yahoo Tech category. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as yahoo_tech_home for the overall Tech homepage.

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