Nexus AI News

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it explains the shape of the returned data (total plus per-vertical and per-event_type counts) and its purpose for filter discovery, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the data-shape statement front-loaded and the usage guidance immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 covers what is returned and why to call it, which is essentially everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: it does not characterize the response format (e.g., map vs. list), though that is hard to state without an output schema.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered global aggregate and does not need to explain parameter syntax that does not exist.

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 precisely what the tool returns: a total item count plus breakdowns per vertical and per event_type. It is a clear verb-less but unambiguous read-only stats resource, distinguishable from get_latest_news/search_news by being a coverage/enumeration tool. It stops short of explicitly naming the siblings it is not.

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?

"Use to discover valid filter values and where coverage is dense" gives a concrete when-to-use case tied to the sibling search tools, telling the agent to call this before filtering. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: result ordering ('newest first') and the pagination contract ('Pass the returned next_cursor back as cursor to fetch older items'), which is the kind of end-to-end mechanic annotations cannot express.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core behavior (what is returned, in what order) is front-loaded, and the pagination instruction follows immediately; every clause carries information.

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 read-only, filterable list tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, including how to page. The only remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against search_news and get_feed_stats, which is not addressed here.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents limit, since, source, vertical and event_type. The description still earns above baseline by explaining the cursor round-trip — that the returned next_cursor is the value to feed back — which the schema's own 'next_cursor from a previous call' only half-states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Most recent AI news items, newest first' — plus the fact that filters are optional. It's clear what the tool returns and in what order, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling search_news, so an agent must infer that this is the browsing/latest tool versus the query tool.

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 phrase 'with optional filters' implies a browse-style listing, and the cursor sentence gives concrete invocation guidance for paging. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-search_news guidance and no stated exclusions, leaving the choice between siblings to inference.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are relevance-ranked blended with recency, and the result set is not paginated — the latter materially changes how an agent should size 'limit'.

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, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the query-syntax and ranking caveats following in priority order.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly: syntax support, ranking behavior, and the absence of pagination. Return shape (fields per hit, total-count availability) is unaddressed but secondary.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by documenting query syntax the schema does not (quoted phrases, OR, -exclusion). It still says nothing about how since/limit interact with the non-paginated ranking.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over indexed AI news') that clearly separates it from get_latest_news and get_feed_stats, which are non-search siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 by the search semantics and the query syntax note, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and get_latest_news (a plausible alternative for browsing recent items) is never mentioned as the substitute.

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