Scan News

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains recency ordering, keyword matching behavior (case-insensitive, Bengali), and sources default behavior. It implies a read-only scan and does not mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but the provided behavior is substantially 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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each paragraph earns its place by covering the main behavior, keyword semantics, and sources option without unnecessary filler.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the main use case, filtering behavior, and sources. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying how this tool relates to deep_search or compare_coverage and in omitting limit semantics, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 compensates by explaining keyword and sources in meaningful detail. It does not explain the limit parameter, though 'limit' with a default of 20 is reasonably self-explanatory from the schema. Overall, it adds strong semantics for two of the three 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 tool scans the latest articles across Bangladeshi newspapers, newest first, and explains the keyword filtering use case. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deep_search or compare_coverage, so the distinction is mostly implied rather than stated.

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 gives clear usage context: use keyword to check whether a brand, person, or topic is being covered right now, and use sources to limit coverage. It also points to list_sources for available options, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare against deep_search/compare_coverage.

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