foreignpolicy_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool returns 'one page' (limiting scope) and 'newest first' ordering, which is useful. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens with invalid slugs, but for a read-only retrieval tool, this is reasonable. It's not a high bar since no annotations, but the behavior is adequately disclosed for basic use.

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 core purpose, then details parameters in a clear, structured manner. Each sentence adds value and no fluff, appropriate for a tool of this complexity.

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 is straightforward (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers essentials: what, how, defaults, and ordering. It lacks info on error handling or interpretation of results, but since it's a simple archive retrieval, it's nearly complete. The lack of output schema means the description could mention return format, but it's not critical for a list tool.

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%, so the description adds value beyond schema by clarifying that 'type' defaults to category, 'page' is 1-based, and 'topic' is a slug. This helps an agent understand the expected format, which is not explicitly in the schema. The description thus enhances parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves a 'Foreign Policy category or tag archive' and returns one page of archive, which is specific enough. It differentiates the archive namespace via 'type' parameter tweaks, distinguishing it from article-specific tools. However, it could be clearer on what 'archive' means exactly (e.g., list of articles, links), but the core purpose is clearly communicated.

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 explains how to use the tool: 'type selects the archive namespace and defaults to category; topic is the slug within it; page is 1-based.' It gives guidance on parameter usage and defaults, but does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like foreignpolicy_headlines or foreignpolicy_article. However, the name and description imply archive-specific retrieval, and the context of siblings suggests alternatives, but no explicit comparison.

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