Pressbox News Wire

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds only the 'public' scoping notion; it does not say how far back 'recent' reaches, what the newsroom vs. releases payload distinction is, or what happens when the issuer has no newsroom.

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; the resource comes first and the supplementary scope second. It is arguably too terse for the tool's routing complexity, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves the sole required parameter undefined and does not disambiguate this tool from latest_pressbox_news or search_pressbox_news. For a one-param lookup whose whole difficulty is knowing the identifier and the sibling boundary, this is 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?

There is one required parameter, 'slug', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about it. It does not state whether the slug is an issuer identifier, a ticker, a Pressbox tenant slug, or its format, which is a real risk for a required lookup key.

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?

It names a specific verb+resource ('Find an issuer's public Pressbox newsroom'), which is more than a tautology, but the second half ('recent published releases') overlaps with the sibling latest_pressbox_news, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone where the newsroom lookup ends and the release-listing sibling begins.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and none of the four siblings (latest_pressbox_news, search_pressbox_news, get_pressbox_release, get_pressbox_public_capabilities) is mentioned as an alternative. The agent is left to infer routing from names alone.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: that release creation/distribution lives in a separate OAuth-protected app requiring explicit user approval — a consent boundary an agent cannot learn from the 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary function front-loaded and the scope limitation following immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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 no-argument introspection tool with a declared output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the essential scope and consent framing without needing to enumerate return fields. A brief note on when to invoke it would fully close the gap.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. Nothing about parameter semantics needs explaining and the description does not waste space restating an 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Explain exactly what Pressbox exposes to AI and what requires consent.' The second sentence delineates scope by contrast, making clear this is a capability/consent disclosure tool rather than one of the news/release retrieval siblings.

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 frames scope ('these capabilities apply only to this public, read-only connector') but never states when an agent should call this tool — e.g., before attempting a write, or when a user asks what the connector can do. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement.

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 behavior, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does, describing verified public source text, canonical URL, issuer metadata, and three categories of data it cannot return. It stops short of noting behavior on a missing/unpublished ID.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the return contents and the negative scope. No filler.

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 an output schema present the description need not detail return shape, and it correctly covers scope, identifier semantics, and retrieval limits. The only remaining gap is error behavior for unknown or unpublished IDs.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must carry the load. It partially compensates by specifying that the ID is the *public* release ID (not an internal or slug identifier), but gives no format, example, or failure behavior for invalid IDs.

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 ('Fetch one already-published release') plus the identifier domain ('Pressbox public release ID'), which implicitly separates it from the search/latest siblings. The exclusion of drafts further pins down the resource class.

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?

Implies the correct usage condition — you already hold a public release ID — and explicitly lists what it cannot do (drafts, private contacts, journalist lists). It does not name an alternative such as search_pressbox_news for when no ID is known, so the when-not path is left 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are public releases ordered by recency, which is useful context, but it says nothing about result count, pagination, or ordering guarantees beyond the word "latest."

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; the optional parameter is appended rather than buried. It is efficient, though its brevity costs it the sibling differentiation and limit detail it 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gaps are real for a two-parameter tool: the limit parameter is undocumented and the relationship to search_pressbox_news is unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does not. It gestures at "category" without stating valid values, case, or defaults, and never mentions the limit parameter or its default of 8.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("latest public Pressbox releases") and a scope qualifier ("latest"), so the basic operation is unambiguous. It fails to distinguish the tool from the closest sibling, search_pressbox_news, which an agent could easily mistake for the same job.

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?

"Latest" and "optionally select a category" imply a browse-the-newest workflow rather than a query workflow, so usage is suggested rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and the sibling search_pressbox_news is never named as the alternative for filtered lookups.

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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results are first-party, independently inspectable, citable, and search presence does not imply third-party citation. It does not cover result ordering or empty-query behavior.

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 short paragraphs with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The second paragraph is slightly disjointed in transition but each 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?

Rich annotations and an output schema reduce the burden, but with four undocumented parameters and no description of empty-query behavior, result ordering, or how the search axes interact, an agent still has open questions before calling 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 description coverage is 0% and no parameter in the schema carries meaning, so the description must compensate. It loosely names three axes (topic, category, issuer) that map to query/category/issuer but adds no format, matching semantics, or how the axes combine, and it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its default of 8.

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 ('Search public Pressbox press releases') plus the search axes (topic, category, issuer). It is distinguishable from get_pressbox_release and latest_pressbox_news by name and intent, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'latest' 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 description never says when to use this versus latest_pressbox_news or get_pressbox_release, nor does it describe prerequisites or when not to use it. The 'does NOT imply any other assistant has cited it' line is a caveat about interpretation, not usage guidance.

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