nwsppr: today's top stories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it only previews the content returned — and since there is no output schema this preview is its only added value, so a middle score is warranted.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant elements (plan, add-ons, price) come first. It is however a grammatical fragment rather than a self-contained statement of action.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining returns, and it does give a rough inventory of return content, which is useful. It still omits whether the result is a single plan or a full catalog, whether pricing is conditional on region or auth, and how the data ties into the signup flow.

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 tool takes zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool 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?

The description enumerates the content offered (plan tiers, add-ons, inclusions, public pricing, industries, purchase mechanics), which implies this is a catalog/pricing lookup for nwsppr plans. But it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb or object of action, so the agent must infer that this is a read/list operation, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like start_signup.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no reference to the sibling tools. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this before start_signup, whether it is required for purchasing, or what situation should select it.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, which already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write, the description discloses the key behavioral facts an agent needs: no charge occurs, and the reply carries a message plus usually a link (Stripe checkout or sign-in) or a waitlist notice. It does not discuss what happens on repeated calls or bad input, but the idempotency annotation covers part of that.

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 consent precondition front-loaded right after the action, and the return behavior last. There is no filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, precondition and expected reply. Minor gaps remain around repeat-call behavior and error cases, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 explains plan, email, company, website, industry, keep_up_with and person_agreed. The description only reinforces the work-email and consent requirements, which are already encoded as format and const constraints, so it adds little new meaning.

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 and resource: it starts a signup ("Starts nwsppr") for the person's company, which the title confirms as a signup action. The product name 'nwsppr' is opaque without outside knowledge, but the action is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools list_plans and todays_top_stories, which are read-only lookups.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: call only after the person asked for or agreed to the signup, and use their own work email. That is a clear when-to-call rule plus a constraint on the input, and no sibling tool competes for this use case, so no alternative routing is needed.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing 'No sign-in' (an auth condition not encoded anywhere structurally) and by describing the shape of each returned story. It stops short of covering result ordering guarantees or what an empty industry returns, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the payload description, then the default behavior, then the citation duty, then the sibling hand-off — a logical order with no filler. The opening sentence is a long appositive stack that takes a second read, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden itself and does so (why it matters, source link, urgency). For a two-parameter, zero-required read tool with strong annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the omit-industry behavior. The description restates the front-page mental model but adds no new semantics for industry slug formatting or for the limit parameter, so 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?

Names a specific resource (the day's top news stories for an industry) and states exactly what each item carries: why it matters, the original source link, and urgency. It also states what makes the ranking meaningful (picked and ranked by nwsppr), which distinguishes it from the account-oriented siblings list_plans and start_signup.

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?

Gives explicit routing in both directions: omit industry for a front page with one lead story per industry, and offer start_signup when the person wants a paper built for their own company. It even instructs on citation, which is an operational obligation for the caller, not just a hint.

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