usatoday_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by specifying the source ('USA Today's public news feed'), the scope ('newest window'), the exact return fields, and a caveat about the lead image being conditionally present. It does not discuss pagination or quirks, but for a zero-parameter read-only feed the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 long and wastes no words. The first sentence states the action and resource immediately, and the second sentence enumerates the return fields and the lead-image caveat. Every sentence 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, so the description covers the core invocation need: what it returns and from where. It could add minor details like result ordering or count, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to document any parameter behavior. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly emphasizes that the tool simply returns the freshest available feed without requiring user input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('fresh USA Today headlines') and states exactly what the tool returns: title, canonical URL, publication/update times, and lead image. It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'usatoday_headlines', which sounds very similar.

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 this tool is for retrieving the latest USA Today stories, but it provides no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as usatoday_headlines, usatoday_sections, usatoday_article, or usatoday_author. There is no 'use this when...' / 'use that instead...' framing, leaving the agent to infer the right choice.

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