nationafrica_news

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (public news sitemap), the fields returned, the recency ordering ('newest'), and the exclusion of video pages. This gives a clear, predictable behavioral contract for a simple read-only fetch, though it doesn't mention pagination or result limits.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action verb and resource are front-loaded, and each detail (source, returned fields, exclusion) 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 news-list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return shape: three explicit fields and a recency ordering. It doesn't describe response format (e.g., list vs object) or pagination, but these are minor for a top-stories sitemap feed.

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 and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The description adds value by clarifying what the response contains, which is the relevant semantic information in this case. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Nation Africa top stories'), and adds concrete scope details: the source is the site's public news sitemap, the returned fields are headline, publication time, and lead image, and video pages are excluded. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like nationafrica_article and nationafrica_author even without naming them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't name sibling tools such as nationafrica_headlines or nationafrica_sections, and doesn't state which use cases would favor another tool (e.g., article details, author queries). The agent has to infer the selection criteria from the name and description alone.

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