euronews_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source (public RSS feed) but does not disclose details such as freshness guarantees, response format, pagination, or any potential limitations. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant 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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action and source are front-loaded, and it avoids redundant explanation. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description is mostly complete: it states what is retrieved and from where. However, it does not indicate the output format (e.g., titles only, summaries, URLs) or any freshness window, which could be relevant for an agent deciding whether to call it. Given the simplicity, it is close to complete but lacks minor details.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'Euronews top stories', and clarifies it is the English edition from a public RSS feed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like euronews_headlines, euronews_article, and euronews_sections by focusing on 'top stories' rather than general headlines or specific articles.

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 fetching top stories, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others like euronews_headlines or euronews_news. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer that 'top stories' is the specific use case.

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