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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. The text only states the tool's topic area and does not explain that it retrieves articles, whether it is read-only, any pagination behavior, or potential rate limits. For a simple news lookup this might be low-risk, but the description still fails to explicitly confirm the read-only nature or return characteristics.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('EBA/DORA regulatory news for banks') and immediately lists relevant topics. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition. The structure is clean and easy to scan, though it could be slightly more organized (e.g., separating the topic list into a bulleted list) to improve readability.

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 simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool is about and lists topics. However, it does not describe the response format (e.g., list of news articles with titles/links) or any filtering behavior beyond what schema parameters imply. Since there is no output schema to fill that gap, a brief mention of return structure would make it more complete.

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 fully describes each parameter (lang, limit, topic) with types, defaults, and ranges, giving a 100% schema coverage. The description adds some context by listing popular topics, which reinforces the parameter values, but it omits 'fintech' that appears in the schema. Overall, the description does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'EBA/DORA regulatory news for banks' and lists relevant topics, making the tool's purpose evident. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'Get' or 'List', instead using a noun phrase that implies retrieval. It does distinguish itself from sibling tools by focusing on regulatory news rather than breaches, CVEs, or advisories.

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 tool's use case is implied: it is for retrieving DORA/regulatory news, and the topic list suggests when to use it (e.g., for 'incident' or 'third_party' news). However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like dora_calendar or incident_timeline. The absence of exclusions or alternative tool references leaves some ambiguity.

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