Yahoo Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: organic-results-only output and a per-call credit cost the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination limits, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences with the core capability first and the cost note last, so nothing buries the lede. The opening 'Yahoo Search.' largely duplicates the title, which is the only wasted fragment.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema and full schema coverage, the essentials are covered, but an agent still lacks details on how many results a page returns and whether deep paging is capped. The credit cost note partly compensates for the missing output shape.

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%, with gl, hl, page, query and fields all documented including the fields projection. The description only alludes to country and language, restating what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Query') plus the named resource ('Yahoo') and states the outcome ('structured organic results with country and language'). The engine name alone separates it from google_search, bing_search, brave_search and duckduckgo_search siblings, though the description never explicitly frames that choice.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many other search tools. The only supplementary information is a cost note ('1 credit per call'), which is pricing, not selection guidance.

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