gol24

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are 'latest' from gol24.uz and optionally type-filtered, which gives useful context, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering details, or rate limits.

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 with no wasted words. It includes helpful examples and an optional filter note compactly.

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-only news tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the source, subject, and optional filter, though it does not clarify how this differs from a general latest-news sibling.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema for club, type, or limit. The examples of club names are already present in the schema's property 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 states a clear purpose: retrieve latest news from gol24.uz about a single club, with example club names. It distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly via the 'one club' scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like latest_news or person_news.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools. The phrase 'about one club' implies the use case, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful ordering trait (newest first) but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or failure behavior; a 3 fits given annotations already carry the read-only signal.

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 tight sentences: source and ordering first, then the optional filter with its vocabulary. No filler, every 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?

For a two-param read-only feed with no output schema, the description covers source, ordering, and filter vocabulary adequately. The only shortfall is not situating it relative to the four sibling news tools.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond the bare 'News type filter' schema text by translating each enum value (matbuot = press/quotes, natija = final match results, umumiy = general), which is real added meaning for an agent choosing a filter.

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?

Names a specific resource (football news from gol24.uz) with a clear scope and ordering (newest first). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like club_news, person_news, or search_news, so the agent must infer that this is the unfiltered/broad feed.

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 usage via 'Optionally filter by type', giving mild guidance on when to pass a filter. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_news, club_news, or person_news, and no exclusions.

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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the response aggregates related items of the same story, but says nothing about how many related items are returned, ordering, or how the story grouping is determined.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the tool's scope and followed by the accepted input formats. The second sentence partially duplicates the schema's parameter description, which is a minor redundancy rather than padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and safety hints already in annotations, the description covers what the tool does and what it accepts. The main remaining gap is the shape and size of the aggregated result set, which an agent would have to discover at call time.

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%; the single 'news' parameter already documents id, slug, and full URL formats. The description restates the same accepted formats without adding resolution rules (e.g. precedence if a slug collides, or what happens with a malformed URL), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'One gol24.uz news item together with all related news of the same story', with a concrete example (a transfer saga) that makes the aggregation behavior unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like latest_news or search_news, but the 'same story' framing is distinctive enough for an agent to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of returning all related news signals this is for getting full story context rather than a single headline. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-prefer-latest_news-or-search_news guidance and no stated 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the source is gol24.uz, names are in Uzbek Latin spelling, and spelling variants are matched automatically, which changes how an agent should phrase input.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the source and scope, and the spelling guidance is placed where it is needed. Slightly dense parenthetical list of examples, but nothing 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?

With only two params, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what is missing: source identity, entity scope, and input-spelling behavior. Return format and pagination are left unstated, but limit is fully covered by the schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks about the required 'person' argument: expected Uzbek Latin spelling with live examples and automatic variant matching. It does not add anything for 'limit', which the schema already documents fully.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Latest gol24.uz news about one person') and scopes the entity type to player, coach, or journalist, which clearly separates it from club- or topic-scoped siblings. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it fetches news for a single named person, but the description never states when to prefer it over club_news, latest_news, or search_news, nor any exclusion conditions. Minimum-viable guidance.

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 and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: content is Uzbek Latin script and names follow Uzbek spelling conventions, which materially changes how an agent forms the query. It does not mention rate limits or result ordering.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scoping, with no filler. The spelling examples are somewhat list-heavy but serve a concrete disambiguation purpose.

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 three-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. The main omission is any statement of what a result contains or how it relates to the sibling news tools.

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 days, limit, and query are fully documented structurally, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the query semantics with Uzbek spelling examples, but adds little beyond the schema for days and limit.

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 (Search) and resource (gol24.uz news titles and summaries) with the matching field (keyword). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like person_news or club_news, so it falls short of a 5, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a usable context cue ('Searches the last N days (default 30)') and spelling guidance, but never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling person_news, club_news, or latest_news. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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