phonearena_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source (public news sitemap), the recency window (about the last two days), and what is included (exact titles and publication times). This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it doesn't mention potential edge cases like empty results or pagination, which are minor for a simple list endpoint.

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 redundancy. The first sentence identifies the core action, the second adds essential detail about source, recency, and output fields. Every phrase earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains what the tool returns, the timeframe, and the source. It doesn't differentiate from the sibling phonearena_headlines tool explicitly, but the mention of 'top stories' and 'exact titles and publication times' gives enough context for an agent to know it's about full stories rather than just headlines.

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)Skip parameter semantics is not a concern; the schema already covers everything with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the output but doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. Baseline 4 for 0-param tools is appropriate.

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 the resource 'PhoneArena top stories', and elaborates that it returns recent phone news stories with exact titles and publication times. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like phonearena_article or phonearena_headlines by specifying the scope and content of the response.

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 provides clear context: it fetches the most recent stories from the public news sitemap, approximately the last two days. This implies when to use it (when recent PhoneArena news is needed), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It's adequate for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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