cnn_live_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the return fields and chronological ordering, but says nothing about read-only semantics, URL validation failure, rate limits, or response envelope behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('CNN live story updates' vs. 'Returns a CNN live story's...'), but overall it is efficient with no wasted 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?

For a single-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description names key fields and ordering, which is helpful. However, it omits error behavior, the exact meaning of 'canonical,' and whether the response is paginated or includes all updates. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would make it more complete.

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%, and the description's 'Provide a canonical cnn.com live-news URL' adds no new information beyond the schema's own 'Canonical cnn.com live-news URL.' No examples, format hints, or accepted URL patterns are given, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 opens with a clear subject (CNN live story) and states the specific return payload: title, description, update time, and chronological post updates. This distinguishes it from siblings like cnn_article and cnn_headlines, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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 implies usage for live-news URLs and instructs the caller to provide a canonical URL, but it never states when to prefer this tool over cnn_article or cnn_headlines, nor gives exclusions or alternative conditions. The guidance is more about invoking the single parameter than about tool selection.

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