propublica_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully reveals that the data comes from a public RSS feed and is 'fresh,' implying no authentication and current top stories. However, it does not describe response items, count, ordering, caching, or rate-limit behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 and the key action is front-loaded. There is slight redundancy between 'Get...top stories' and 'Returns...top stories,' but the second sentence adds the source and freshness, so it 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 feed tool, the description is mostly usable: an agent knows to call with no arguments and expects current ProPublica stories from RSS. But because there is no output schema and no annotations, it should also clarify what a 'story' contains or how results are ordered and limited; that gap prevents it from being fully complete.

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 required list, so there is nothing for the description to document; the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'top stories' and 'RSS feed' reinforces what the response covers but adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get ProPublica top stories') and adds a source ('public RSS feed'), so an agent knows exactly what content to expect. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like propublica_headlines or propublica_sections, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or named alternatives are present; the description only states what the tool returns. Sibling tools such as propublica_headlines, propublica_article, and propublica_sections clearly overlap in the news domain, but the description gives no condition for choosing propublica_news over them. This is effectively no guidance rather than explicit routing.

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