fastcompany_news

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that stories come from a public RSS feed and are 'fresh', but does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, rate limits, or whether results are a list or a single item. For a read-only feed tool, this is a minimal but incomplete disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the primary action ('Get Fast Company top stories') stated first, followed by a clarifying detail about the source. Two sentences contain no extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, low complexity), the description is minimally sufficient. It tells the agent what it returns and the source, but does not specify the structure of the returned stories (e.g., titles, links, publication dates) or whether 'top stories' implies any filtering. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this tool meets a specific need.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, and there is nothing to add beyond the schema. It does not mislead or introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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 Fast Company top stories') and mentions the source (public RSS feed). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fastcompany_headlines or fastcompany_news, which may overlap in scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool (e.g., fastcompany_article or fastcompany_sections) would be more appropriate.

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