rte_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the data comes from a 'public news feed' (implying read-only, no auth) and that results are 'fresh.' It does not mention response shape, result limits, pagination, or update cadence, but for a simple no-param feed tool the disclosure is adequate.

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 totaling roughly 35 words. The core action is front-loaded ('Get RTÉ News top stories'), followed by the source and scope. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, the source ('public news feed'), and the scope. It stops short of describing output structure or limits, but it gives enough for an agent to invoke the tool without risk, and there is no output schema requiring return-value documentation.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 RTÉ News top stories') and reinforces it with 'Returns fresh RTÉ News top stories from its public news feed.' It adds scope clarification ('not the RTÉ Player, radio, sport or entertainment sections'), which narrows the tool's domain, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling rte_headlines, so sibling distinction is incomplete.

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 when to use the tool (when RTÉ News top stories are desired) and sets a clear scope boundary by excluding other RTÉ sections. However, it never names alternative tools or provides a direct when-not vs. a sibling, so an agent deciding between rte_news and rte_headlines gets no explicit routing guidance.

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