dw_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read-only fetch from a public RSS feed (implying no auth) and that results are fresh. However, it does not disclose result count, response shape, or behavior on feed failure—acceptable for a zero-parameter fetch but not rich.

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?

Two sentences totaling ~15 words with the action ('Get DW top stories') front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the source/recency details are packed efficiently into the second sentence.

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 an extremely simple zero-parameter, read-only feed tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the resource, the source, and the freshness of the data. The only gap is the absence of an output schema, which would tell the agent the shape of the returned stories—but that is a platform-level omission, not a description failure.

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 and an empty input schema, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies; the description adds no parameter meaning because none exists to add.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('DW top stories'), and clarifies the data source ('public RSS feed'). It clearly distinguishes from dw_article and dw_author by scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the near-adjacent dw_headlines sibling, relying instead on the 'top stories' phrasing.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'top stories' and 'fresh' signal this is for current, headline-level content rather than specific articles or sections. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the DW siblings (dw_headlines, dw_article, dw_sections).

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