guardian_topic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the archive is 'public' and 'paginated', and that page defaults to 1, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the response format, pagination size, or any rate limits or error behavior. It's a read operation, but that's implied rather than explicit.

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 sentences and front-loads the core purpose ('Get Guardian topic archive') before adding detail. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence could be slightly more structured. It's appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, it doesn't mention what the response contains (e.g., list of articles, metadata), pagination size, or any usage caveats. Given the sibling tools like guardian_article and guardian_headlines exist, a bit more context on what 'topic archive' returns would help.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a bit of context by explaining that 'topic is a Guardian tag or section slug' and that 'page defaults to 1', but these largely mirror the schema descriptions. The description doesn't add significant new meaning 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Guardian topic archive'), and clarifies that it returns a paginated public Guardian topic or category archive. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like guardian_article and guardian_headlines by focusing on topic/category archives, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 context by explaining that 'topic is a Guardian tag or section slug', which tells the agent what kind of input to provide. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like guardian_article or guardian_headlines, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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