reuters_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the source ('Reuters' public news feed'), the freshness ('fresh'), and the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no lead image is published, and it doesn't state whether the feed is read-only (though 'Get' implies it).

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, front-loads the core action and resource, and lists return fields efficiently. The second sentence adds context about the feed source. No wasted words, though the repetition of 'fresh Reuters headlines' in the first two sentences is slightly redundant.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields. However, it lacks guidance on pagination behavior, how to interpret the 'page' parameter beyond the schema, and how this tool relates to sibling Reuters tools. Given the large sibling set, a bit more context 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% for the single 'page' parameter, which is described as 'Results page, 50 items per page.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('fresh Reuters headlines'), and lists the returned fields (title, canonical URL, publication/update times, lead image). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like reuters_article, reuters_articles, reuters_section, or reuters_sections, but the headline focus is 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 usage for fetching recent Reuters headlines and notes it covers 'the most recent stories from Reuters' public news feed.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus reuters_article, reuters_articles, reuters_section, or reuters_sections, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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