gbnews_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns fresh GB News top stories from the public news feed', indicating a read-only, public operation. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or limitations, and the return format is vague. It adds some context ('fresh', 'public') but lacks depth.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a bit of redundant phrasing ('GB News top stories' repeated) but also introduces 'fresh' and 'public news feed', which are valuable. It's concise without being under-specified, though a touch repetitive.

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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the basic context that it returns top stories. However, without an output schema, it leaves the return structure undefined—whether it's a list, what fields are present, etc. For an agent to use the result, some indication of format would be helpful. The description is adequate for invocation but incomplete for understanding the response.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly adds no extraneous parameter information. It adequately covers the lack of inputs.

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 resource 'GB News top stories', making the purpose specific and understandable. The name and the phrase 'top stories' help differentiate it from sibling tools like gbnews_article or gbnews_headlines, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The distinction is implied by the wording but not fully explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions for use, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like gbnews_headlines or gbnews_sections. An agent gets no help in deciding between this and similar news tools.

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