spacenews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions sorting and return fields but doesn't cover pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'fetch' implies safe retrieval).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details about sorting and return fields. Every word contributes value with zero redundancy.

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 simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks behavioral context that would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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 'limit' is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 action ('fetch'), resource ('spaceflight news articles'), and key attributes ('sorted by publication date', returns specific fields). It distinguishes from 'search_articles' by focusing on latest articles rather than search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly mention 'get_blogs'.

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 usage for retrieving latest spaceflight news, suggesting this is for general browsing rather than targeted searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'get_blogs' or 'search_articles', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format ('title, summary, URL, image, and source') and sorting behavior ('sorted by publication date'), which is useful. However, it lacks details about error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'fetch' implies reading). The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool returns and sorting behavior, which helps the agent understand the output. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't provide complete context about error cases, pagination, or how to interpret the return values beyond listing fields.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 purpose: 'Fetch the latest spaceflight blog posts sorted by publication date.' It specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('spaceflight blog posts'), and sorting criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (get_articles, search_articles), which would require clarification about what makes blogs different from articles or when to use this versus search functionality.

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 its siblings (get_articles, search_articles). It mentions what the tool does but offers no context about alternatives, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent receives no help in choosing between similar tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (title, summary, URL, publication date) which is valuable, but doesn't mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks operational context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently states the action, resource, and return format. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (search with 2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, resource, and return format, but could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., search scope, result limits beyond the schema's default/max). It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or result ordering. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('spaceflight news articles'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools (get_articles, get_blogs) by specifying it's for searching by keyword rather than retrieving articles directly.

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 when to use this tool (for searching articles by keyword) versus the sibling tools (which likely retrieve articles without searching), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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