theage_news

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states the output (RSS feed with specified fields), which is transparent about the return content. However, it does not mention read-only nature explicitly, possible latency, or any access restrictions, though these are likely assumed for a public feed. The field enumeration adds value beyond a generic description.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get The Age top stories') and then specifies the source and return fields. There is no redundancy, and every phrase adds value, making it 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact fields returned (title, URL, summary, author, time, image). It clearly indicates 'current' and 'public RSS feed', which sets expectations for freshness and accessibility. However, it does not mention that the feed is limited to the latest items or that it does not support filtering, but these are minor gaps for a simple feed tool.

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?

There are no parameters, and the description correctly implies none are needed. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter usage. It implicitly communicates that the tool requires no inputs.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('The Age top stories'), specifies it returns the public RSS feed, and enumerates the returned fields. It is distinct from siblings like theage_article or theage_author, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with theage_headlines which may overlap in meaning.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for The Age (headlines, sections, article, author), the description does not state conditions like 'for specific stories use theage_article' or exclusions. The user must infer it is for top stories without further context.

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