pl_news_popular

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the return format (top-level array with fields), confirming no auth is required, and introducing the 'smart-ranked' concept. Since readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint are already provided, the additional return-structure and auth details are valuable. It does not go into depth about ranking logic or pagination, but it covers the essentials for a simple read-only tool.

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 concise, covering purpose, return format, and auth in three short segments. There is no redundancy or filler content. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful details for the agent.

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 is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, and the description provides the return structure and auth requirements, which is largely sufficient. However, it does not explicitly identify the domain (Premier League) or explain what 'smart-ranked' means, leaving minor gaps. The level of detail is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for 'limit' and 'recency'. The tool description only repeats the recency concept without adding new parameter context. Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, the description provides minimal additional semantic value, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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,' which identifies both the action and the resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pl_news_latest and pl_video_popular by specifying 'popular' and the recency window. The verb is implicit (retrieve), but the scope is concrete and unambiguous.

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 usage through the recency parameter and 'smart-ranked' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., pl_news_latest for latest news). The guidance is sufficient for a basic understanding but not for optimal tool selection in all cases.

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