fetch_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the five-source parallel fan-out, merge/de-dupe/range-filter pipeline, partial-failure semantics (a broken feed is skipped with a warning rather than failing the call), and the explicit error condition when no source is configured (noting GDELT needs no key). These are exactly the operational traits an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the pipeline/failure semantics. Slightly parenthetical in the second sentence but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers configuration prerequisites and failure modes thoroughly. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'topic' parameter, which matters for a search tool.

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 reported at 0% for the top-level properties: 'topic' has no description anywhere, so the agent gets no guidance on query syntax or multi-word behavior. The description adds only that the date range is inclusive, which the nested DateRangeInput schema already states for start/end.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (news) plus the scope: a topic over an inclusive date range from every configured source. Siblings (build_forecast, compute_numerology, query_qdrant) are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed for an agent to identify this as the news-retrieval tool.

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 when to use it (retrieving news for a topic/date range), but names no alternative tool and states no when-not conditions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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