get_high_score_news

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 sorting behavior ('sorted by score descending') and output constraints ('maximum results to return'), which are useful. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned articles, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently details parameters without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering parameter semantics and basic behavior. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., article fields), error cases, or performance considerations, which would be needed for full completeness in this context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: min_score ('Minimum score threshold') with a default value, and limit ('Maximum results to return') with default and max values. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting all parameters.

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 specific action ('Get highly-rated news articles'), identifies the resource ('news articles'), and specifies the rating mechanism ('by AI score') and sorting order ('sorted by score descending'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_latest_news (which likely sorts by time) or search_news (which likely filters by keywords).

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 high-scoring articles, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_news or search_news. It provides default values and limits, which offer some contextual guidance, but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions for sibling tools.

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