get_news_by_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions default and max values for 'limit' (10, 100), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of articles with fields). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a usage guideline, then details each parameter with examples and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics and usage guidance but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., return format, error handling). For a tool with 3 parameters and multiple siblings, it's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness, especially around output and operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: engine_type (with examples like 'news', 'listing'), news_type (with examples like 'Bloomberg', 'Reuters'), and limit (with default and max). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more context on valid values or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get news articles from a specific source.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('news articles') with a qualifier ('from a specific source'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_news_by_engine or get_latest_news, which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use get_news_sources first to see available engine types and news type codes.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after consulting get_news_sources) and references a specific sibling tool. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_news_by_engine or search_news, leaving some ambiguity.

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