find_stories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: searches recent coverage, groups articles, ranks by publisher count and freshness, and mentions specific fields (ready_to_write, age_hours, fetchable_urls). It does not explicitly state read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination, but the described workflow implies a safe read operation. The coverage is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear 'START HERE' opener, examples, and a logical flow from purpose to workflow to parameter guidance. It is somewhat repetitive with two similar topic examples, but each sentence adds value and the key guidance is front-loaded. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics (mostly), and downstream integration. It lacks a description of `limit`, detailed output structure, and error cases, but the provided workflow (ready_to_write, age_hours, fetchable_urls) gives sufficient context for correct invocation. Minor gaps keep it from a 5.

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 explains `days` (recency window with default 2 and guidance to widen/narrow) and implicitly explains `topic` by contrasting with headlines. However, `limit` is not described at all. While it covers two of three parameters, the missing `limit` leaves a gap for agents unsure of its effect.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: searches recent coverage, groups articles into stories, and ranks by publisher count and freshness. It clearly distinguishes itself as the starting point for topic-based queries, explicitly contrasting with specific headlines and referencing downstream tools like verify_news and fetch_article_facts.

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?

It explicitly says 'START HERE when the user gives a topic rather than a specific headline,' providing a clear when-to-use condition. It also gives detailed workflow guidance: use ready_to_write stories, check age_hours, pass headline to verify_news and fetchable_urls to fetch_article_facts, and adjust days based on results. This is explicit and actionable.

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