get_news_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool analyzes volume over time, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the query is invalid. The mutation status is implied as safe but not confirmed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by a clear argument list. Every piece of information is relevant and there is no fluff.

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 complexity (trend analysis over time) and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., an array of time points with counts, intervals), nor does it mention pagination or data limits. For a tool that returns a timeline, this is a significant gap.

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 description adds value beyond the input schema by explaining 'query' as the topic or search term and 'timespan' as the time period with allowed values (15min, 1h, etc.) and a default. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions (0% coverage). However, it does not clarify the exact format for the timespan values (e.g., '1d' vs '1 day').

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 analyzes news volume over time for a topic, which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_global_news (which searches for news articles) and get_trending_topics (which gets trending topics rather than volume trends).

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 trend analysis via the phrase 'Trend-Analyse', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_global_news or get_news_by_category. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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