find_stories

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does meaningfully disclose behavior: articles are deduplicated into events, ranking is by independent publisher count and freshness, and output fields like ready_to_write, age_hours and fetchable_urls are surfaced. It omits auth/permission or rate-limit context, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the routing condition and the core behavior, then usage detail and the parameter note. A few lines (the topic examples) are illustrative rather than essential, but overall the structure earns its length.

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?

For a 3-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the workflow position, the returned field names, and the key parameter guidance. Only `limit` lacks any explanation, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents `days` well (default 2, widen if empty, narrow to 1 for same-day), but gives no meaning for `limit` and only contextualizes `topic`. Partial compensation for the undocumented parameters.

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 chain (searches coverage, groups articles into stories, ranks by publisher count and freshness) and clearly scopes itself: 'Step 1 when the input is a TOPIC rather than a specific headline.' This distinguishes it from verify_news, which handles the headline case.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (topic input, no claim to verify yet) versus what comes next (verify_news for the headline, fetch_article_facts for URLs), plus guidance to prefer ready_to_write stories and check age_hours. Effectively a routing instruction for the whole workflow.

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