latest_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the sort order (published_utc) and pagination support, but it omits other behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the returned articles. It is a simple read operation, so the gaps are not severe, but richer context would help.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes key details (sort and pagination). Every word earns its place, with no fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 list-retrieval tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functional behavior. It states the resource, sort order, and pagination support. However, it does not mention the structure of returned articles or any source context, which could be inferred from the tool name and siblings. Overall, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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% (both properties have descriptions), but those descriptions are only example values ('Example value: 1') and add little semantic meaning. The tool description mentions 'pagination support' which implies page and page_size roles, and the parameter names are self-explanatory. With baseline 3 for high coverage, no credit beyond that is warranted.

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: 'Retrieve a list of articles sorted by published_utc with pagination support.' It uses a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (articles), and the sorting and pagination details distinguish it from sibling search tools like latest_news_search_by_keyword.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name plus the existence of search siblings imply this is for general latest-news retrieval while search tools are for keyword-based queries. No exclusions or alternatives are explicitly named, so guidance is only implied.

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