guardian_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination behavior (20 per page, newest first, total pages/results), the is_front flag for section fronts, and the resolved_topic nuance for edition-scoped fronts. It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but as a read operation that's not critical. It provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact yet informative, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing key details. It avoids fluff and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior. Slightly dense but well-structured.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential return info (pagination, is_front, resolved_topic). It doesn't detail the structure of individual stories, but the agent can infer the basic response from the context. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that topic is a slug, that page defaults to 1 (though schema also states this), and notably that resolved_topic reports the actual path served, which differs for edition-scoped fronts. This enriches the meaning of the topic parameter beyond its schema description.

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 Guardian topic archive, and distinguishes between a tag archive and a section front. It specifies what is returned (stories, pagination info, is_front flag) and mentions the topic parameter is a tag or section slug, which differentiates it from sibling tools like guardian_article or guardian_headlines.

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?

It explains the two modes (tag archive vs. section front) and when each applies, but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like guardian_headlines for getting headlines. It does imply usage via the description of what it returns, but lacks a direct 'use this when...' statement. The guidance is clear enough for most cases.

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