espn_news

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and open world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: return format ({header, articles}), content fields (headline, description, links, images), and 'Auth: none needed'. It doesn't mention rate limits or failure behavior, but with annotations and a simple read-only feed, this is sufficient.

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 extremely efficient: one lead sentence stating purpose, one line for return format, one snippet example, and a one-line auth note. Every sentence earns its place. No fluff, front-loaded purpose.

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 read-only news feed with full parameter coverage and strong annotations. The description covers return structure, example usage, and auth. No output schema needed since return format is explicitly defined inline. It's complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (sport slug, league slug, limit). The description adds a concrete usage example ('sport': 'football', 'league': 'nfl') that demonstrates exact parameter values, reinforcing the schema's 'e.g.' hints. It doesn't add syntax details but the example meaningfully aids correct invocation.

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 this is a 'League news feed' returning 'recent articles' for one league, which distinguishes it from score/standings/team tools like espn_scoreboard or espn_teams. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other news tools like pl_news_latest or nbl_news, so it's clear but not fully sibling-distinguishing.

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 provides clear context: it's for one league's news, with an example showing sport/league values. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or exclude other uses, but the 'for one league' scope and example give solid contextual guidance. No misleading alternatives are mentioned.

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