digest

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds material context beyond them: the digest is generated locally by Ollama and generation can take several minutes on CPU. That latency warning is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call it, though failure/length behavior is not covered.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then the parameter note and the latency caveat. Compact and free of filler, though the terse fragments leave gaps rather than waste.

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, but with 5 optional parameters at 0% coverage and no guidance on when this synthesis is preferable to latest_news or search_news, the definition is under-specified for the tool's complexity and multi-minute cost.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains only 'focus' (optional reading angle with an example). hours, limit, category, and language are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 output (a synthesis of recent articles) produced by the local Ollama LLM, which distinguishes it from the retrieval-oriented siblings list_sources/latest_news/search_news. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool produces a written digest, and the focus example hints at a topical angle. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling news/search tools and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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