Emerge Times

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value beyond them by enumerating the return payload: plain text, cited source links, citation line and CC BY 4.0 license. With no output schema, this is the only place return contents are disclosed; it omits failure behavior for bad ids/URLs.

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, trigger condition front-loaded before the return-value list. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Return values are covered in the description, which matters since there is no output schema, and the single parameter is documented at 100%. Missing only error/not-found behavior and whether license or citation formatting varies by article.

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% with a single well-described parameter ("Article id or emergetimes.com article URL"), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format hints, no id/URL tradeoffs, and no example, so nothing 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?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair: retrieve the full text of a single Emerge Times article. The phrase "one Emerge Times article" implicitly separates it from the discovery-oriented siblings (list_latest, search_articles), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 when you need the full text ... to quote, summarize or cite it" gives a concrete trigger condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. use search_articles to find an id first), so no exclusion guidance.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds workflow context (the output feeds list_latest), which is useful, but says nothing about the shape or size of the returned category list, so the extra value is modest.

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 sentence with no filler, and the two purposes (inspect coverage, source names for list_latest) are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 trivial no-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key workflow linkage and a sense of the return content. It could be slightly stronger by noting that results are a flat list of names, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not introduce any parameter-like concepts, keeping expectations aligned with the empty 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 states a clear purpose: reveal which topics Emerge Times covers and produce category names. The resource (categories/topics) is specific and distinguishable from siblings like get_article and search_articles, though the verb is implicit ('see') rather than a crisp 'list'.

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 explicitly names the downstream use case — obtaining category names for list_latest — which gives an agent a concrete condition for calling it first. There is no explicit when-not or mention of the other siblings, but the chaining guidance is strong for a zero-parameter tool.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. Because no output schema exists, the description earns credit for disclosing the return payload (title, date, URL, category, summary); it omits ordering guarantees and the default result count, which live only in the 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, no waste, with the invocation trigger front-loaded ahead of the return description. The topic list is long but functional for intent matching.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the definition covers trigger, scope, return fields, and the optional category filter. Minor gaps are ordering and what happens when the category yields no matches.

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, including the default of 10 and the reference to list_categories for slugs. The description only adds that the category filter is optional and single-valued, which is marginal beyond the schema — 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 (newest Emerge Times articles on AI agents, AGI, robotics, agent economy) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_articles or get_article, leaving the recency-vs-query distinction to inference.

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 when the user wants recent news about..." is an explicit trigger tied to user intent, which is strong guidance. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g., 'use search_articles for keyword queries'), so routing between siblings still requires 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds that results include summaries, which is useful, but says nothing about result ordering, relevance, or what an empty result means. Adequate but not rich given annotations carry the heavy lifting.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then behavior, then the sibling hand-off. No wasted text.

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?

Complete for a simple 2-param read-only search with no output schema: the agent knows the trigger, the return shape (articles with summaries), and the sibling alternative. Minor gap is the absence of any note on result ordering or pagination beyond the limit cap.

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 both query and limit are already documented with bounds and defaults. The description adds no syntax guidance (e.g., quoting, boolean operators) beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (published articles in Emerge Times), and its trigger condition. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_article, the closest sibling, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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 an explicit 'use when' condition (user asks what Emerge Times reported on a topic, company or technology) and names the alternative for the contrasting case ('For the full text of one article use get_article'). The selection logic is fully stated.

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