pl_news_popular

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits fully. It states the return format (top-level array with specific fields) and the time constraint (recency hours), but it does not explain what 'smart-ranked' means, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication needs, or error handling. It provides basic transparency but lacks depth for a tool without annotations.

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: the first gives the core purpose with a key parameter, the second specifies the exact return format. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. Very efficient.

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?

The tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main parameter (recency) and return format fully, but it omits explanation of the 'limit' parameter and does not elaborate on the ranking mechanism. For a tool of this complexity, it is nearly complete, but the lack of limit description is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'recency' and its unit (hours) but does not describe the 'limit' parameter at all. The description adds meaning for recency but misses limit, which has a default in the schema. Without schema coverage, this is a gap; a score of 3 is appropriate for partial coverage.

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 returns 'Popular news over the last recency hours, smart-ranked.' It specifies the resource (popular news) and the time window, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pl_news_latest (likely latest news). The verb 'returns' is implied, and the output format is given.

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 context: use this tool to get popular news within a given number of hours. It implies that for a different context (e.g., latest news) one should use alternatives like pl_news_latest, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings. The guidance is clear enough for an AI to infer usage.

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