techcrunch_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source (public RSS feed) but does not disclose potential limitations such as update frequency, rate limits, pagination, or the exact return structure. The description is minimal and does not offer much beyond the basic function.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Get TechCrunch top stories'), followed by a concise clarification of the data source. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits the return format (e.g., list of article objects with titles, URLs). Since no output schema exists, the description should ideally hint at what the agent will receive, but it only says 'returns fresh TechCrunch top stories.' This is a minor gap but not critical for a straightforward feed retrieval.

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 the schema already confirms this with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there is nothing for the description to add. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist, so this 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 tool retrieves TechCrunch top stories, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like techcrunch_article and techcrunch_author, though not explicitly from techcrunch_headlines, which could be ambiguous. The addition of 'from its public RSS feed' adds useful context, but it does not explicitly differentiate from all possible similar tools.

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 like techcrunch_headlines or techcrunch_sections. It only states what it does, not when it is the appropriate choice. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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