get-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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination but doesn't describe key behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., article format, total count). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 and front-loaded with a single sentence: 'Get news articles with pagination.' It wastes no words and directly communicates the core functionality, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a news retrieval tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error conditions, authentication needs, and how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all parameters (page, limit, from, to). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining date filtering nuances or pagination defaults. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 with pagination.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('news articles'), and mentions pagination as a key feature. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get-news-by-id' or 'get-news-by-type', which limits differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-news-by-id' or 'get-news-by-type'. It mentions pagination but doesn't specify scenarios where this general news retrieval is preferred over more specific queries, leaving usage context unclear.

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