apnews_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does well: it explains the browser-fleet fallback for AP's edge challenge, states that authentication/access controls are not bypassed, and discloses credit costs for both HTTP and browser-rendering paths. It does not describe the output shape, but that is a minor gap for a simple zero-parameter fetch.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds valuable behavioral and billing details without repetition or fluff. Every sentence contributes useful information for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the source, the fallback behavior, the no-auth-bypass guarantee, and the billing implications. The only notable absence is a description of the return structure, which would be helpful but is not critical for an agent to make the call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meaning. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly implies this is an unparameterized fetch by simply stating it returns top stories.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get AP News top stories' from the 'public AP News Top News hub.' It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool apnews_headlines, leaving some ambiguity about the distinction between top stories and headlines.

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 context about the data source ('public AP News Top News hub') and operational details, so an agent can infer when to use it for AP top stories. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like apnews_headlines, apnews_article, or apnews_news.

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