latest_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-source behavior are covered. The description usefully adds the freshness window and sort order, but says nothing about what the 'refresh' flag actually does or whether results are cached.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the core behavior leads, then the parameter hints follow. The trailing parameter notes read a bit like a fragmented addendum but nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, but with five parameters at 0% schema coverage the description covers only two of them and offers no guidance on defaults or the refresh behavior, leaving gaps for an agent invoking it.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It does add real value by enumerating category values (ia, data, cloud) that the schema lacks as enums, and by explaining source as a feed name or partial name with an example, but hours, limit, and refresh remain completely undocumented.

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 concrete resource and scope: articles published in the last few hours, ordered newest to oldest. The recency/ordering framing distinguishes it in spirit from search_news and digest, but it never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 'dernières heures / du plus récent au plus ancien' framing implies this is the feed-style tool to use when freshness matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named against search_news or digest.

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