pl_news_latest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that no auth is needed and reveals the return shape, which are helpful supplemental details. There is no contradiction with annotations, and no destructive behavior is implied.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the tool's purpose and immediately providing return structure, an example, and auth requirements. No fluff or redundancy. Every sentence serves a 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?

For a simple read-only feed tool, the description covers the core need: what it returns, an example call, and auth status. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list. It could elaborate on the 'smart-ranked' algorithm or tag syntax, but that is not essential for basic usage.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description's role is minimal. The example with 'limit': 5 provides a concrete usage illustration but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the load.

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 identifies the tool as returning the latest news with a smart ranking, described as the homepage feed. It lists the return fields, making the resource and action unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like pl_news_popular, but the 'latest' vs 'popular' distinction is implied.

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 context that this is the homepage feed for latest news, but it does not specify when to prefer this over siblings such as pl_news_popular or pl_content. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided. The example and auth note add some context, but usage guidance is mostly implicit.

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