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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read-only behavior. The description adds context about returned content (articles with summaries and links) and lists valid sport/league pairs, enhancing transparency beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, followed by a concise list of common pairs. Every part adds value, with no redundant words or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (headlines with summaries and links). It explains the sport and league parameters with examples. The limit parameter is documented in the schema. While pagination or more detailed return structure could be mentioned, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already well-described. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of sport/league pairs (e.g., 'soccer/eng.1' for Premier League), which the schema's enum-less design lacks. This helps the agent choose correct values.

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 returns 'latest sports news headlines for a league', specifying the verb (get/retrieve) and resource (news headlines). It provides specific sport/league pairs (e.g., baseball/mlb) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scoreboard and get_standings that serve different purposes.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining the tool provides news headlines, contrasting with scoreboard, standings, teams, and schedule siblings. It lists common sport/league pairs, helping the agent select correct parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives.

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