livemint_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 states the tool 'Returns fresh Mint top stories,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple fetch tool this is acceptable, but it lacks richer behavioral context like pagination or error behavior.

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 short sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second provides a useful clarification about the feed source. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the exact source (public news feed) and what is returned (top stories). However, it doesn't describe the structure of the returned stories (e.g., fields, count, sorting), which could be useful but isn't essential for a simple fetch.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. The schema is empty and the tool's purpose is self-contained.

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 tool retrieves top stories from Mint (livemint.com) via its news feed. The verb 'Get' and resource 'Mint top stories' are specific. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like livemint_headlines, but the phrase 'top stories' and 'news feed' distinguish it from article/author/section tools, so it's clear enough.

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 the tool is for fetching top stories, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives such as livemint_headlines or livemint_sections. There's no stated context or exclusion, so an agent might struggle to choose between similar news-feed tools.

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