AllNewsAPI

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, and the description is consistent with that. It adds that the tool returns top headlines and supports optional filters, but it does not disclose defaults, result limits, ordering, or other behavioral nuances.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Get top headlines') and then lists the main filter dimensions. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 does not clarify the structure or content of the returned headlines, nor does it mention defaults like 'max' defaulting to 5. The input schema and read-only annotation cover some aspects, but operational behavior remains under-specified.

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?

All seven parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description names only three parameters (country, category, language) and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 ('Get top headlines') and names the filtering dimensions. It clearly indicates the tool returns headline articles, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search-news, so differentiation is only partial.

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 description implies use for retrieving current top headlines, optionally filtered by country, category, or language. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search-news or usage, and no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a generic search operation—it does not mention result format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or paid-plan restrictions. It neither contradicts the annotation nor meaningfully expands on it.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no redundant detail, though the phrase 'various parameters' is somewhat vague and could be replaced with more specific guidance.

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 tool with 16 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It does not explain what the response will contain, how results are paginated, or how this search differs from the sibling 'headlines' tool. The rich parameter schema compensates partially, but high-level behavioral context 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 parameter schemas already document all 16 parameters. The description's mention of 'keywords, date ranges, and filters' loosely maps to q, startDate/endDate, and filter parameters, but it adds no new meaning 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search for news articles' with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'headlines' or 'usage', but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'headlines'. It mentions generic filters but does not state use cases, exclusions, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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=true, and the description is consistent with that by using 'Check'. It adds concrete context about what is checked (plan, limits, quota), giving the agent a clear picture of the read-only scope without needing extra behavior details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key action ('Check') appears first. This is an ideal size for such a simple tool.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool checks and that it is non-destructive. No additional context is required.

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 has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on the return subject rather than inputs.

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 ('Check') and identifies the exact resource ('your current API plan, usage limits, and remaining quota'). It is clearly distinct from the news-focused sibling tools, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 description clearly frames the tool as a usage/quota check, which makes its context obvious even without explicitly excluding alternatives. There are no exclusions stated, but the sibling news tools are so different that an agent can easily infer when this tool applies.

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