research_news

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by disclosing the return fields (article titles, publication dates, source names, URLs) and describing the output as a 'curated feed.' However, it omits potential behavioral details like default limit, ordering, or whether results are paginated, which would make it more transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then concisely lists return fields and the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place, making it both efficient 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: what it retrieves, what it returns, and the use case. It could mention how the `limit` parameter affects results, but the overall completeness is strong given the tool's simplicity and rich annotations.

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 only parameter `limit` is fully described in the schema as 'Maximum number of results to return,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'crypto and DeFi news headlines from DefiLlama's news aggregator.' It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools (e.g., research_token_holders, research_contract_security) by focusing on news headlines rather than on-chain analytics, making its purpose 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 provides clear context by stating the tool 'support[s] market research and situational awareness,' implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest bar for usage guidance.

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