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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. It also does not mention that this is a read-only operation or any implications of the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema already states. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core action.

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 gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it efficient and easily scannable.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential functionality but lacks context for use cases and alternatives. It does not explain when to choose recent_news over search_news, nor does it mention any behavioral traits such as ordering or result format. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 covers 100% of the parameters (only 'limit', described as 'Nombre d\'articles (défaut 10)'). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the description is not expected to repeat that information, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 it returns the latest news about Claude/Anthropic from a specific corpus ('Renvoie les dernières actualités de Claude / Anthropic du corpus Claude News'). The verb 'renvoie' and the specific resource (latest news from Claude/Anthropic) make the purpose unambiguous. Although it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_news, the focus on 'dernières actualités' (recent news) distinguishes it from a search operation.

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 the sibling search_news. It does not mention any alternative or conditions under which one should be preferred. No explicit or implied exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without direction on choosing between the two news-related tools.

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