espn_news

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It mentions the data is from a 'credential-free public JSON' but does not disclose ordering, pagination, number of articles returned, or error handling for invalid sport/league combinations.

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 a single focused paragraph, front-loading the purpose and then detailing parameter values. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main points: what it returns and the valid input values. It could be more complete by mentioning the typical number of articles returned or any rate limits, but it is sufficient for basic use.

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 coverage is 100% with two required parameters. The description adds substantial value by listing all accepted sport and league enum values explicitly, along with the constraint that the league must be valid for the chosen sport. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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: returns recent news articles (headline, description, link) for a league from ESPN's public JSON. The verb 'returns' and resource 'news articles' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like espn_game_summary or espn_athlete by focusing on league news.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention contexts where other tools (e.g., for scores or teams) would be more appropriate. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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