Semiconductor news headlines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/freshness profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: results come from external publisher RSS feeds and links point to the publisher. It omits default recency window, default result count, and ordering, which matter for a news feed.

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?

Three tight sentences with the resource and sources front-loaded, then filter semantics, then link behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to say results are headlines whose links go to the publisher. But for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the missing defaults and ranges for 'days' and 'limit' leave an agent guessing at the shape of a minimal call.

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 explain 'query' well (all words must appear in the title, with examples), but 'days' and 'limit' are entirely undocumented — no defaults, no indication that days is capped at 30 or limit at 40 — so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 resource and scope: 'Recent chip/semiconductor headlines from publisher RSS feeds', and even enumerates the five sources, so an agent knows exactly what content comes back. However, it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, chip_briefing, which likely also returns news-like content; the differentiation is left to the reader.

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 establishes context (publisher headlines) and that the keyword filter is optional, with examples ('nvidia', 'tsmc 2nm', 'export'). It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over chip_briefing, chip_company_filings, or export_control_lookup, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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