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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the response format looks like. The description simply restates the name's meaning without adding any behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is zero redundancy or fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with only four parameters, all documented in the schema, and an output schema exists to describe the return structure. The description covers the essential purpose and filters. While it does not mention optional parameters like query, the schema already does. For this low-complexity tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so all four parameters (query, country, category, page_size) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, such as relationships or usage hints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves top news headlines, specifying the two primary filters (country and category). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'search_news', which implies a different use case (searching for specific articles rather than aggregated headlines). The verb 'get' and resource 'top news headlines' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when one wants top headlines by country/category, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_news or state when to prefer one over the other. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name and description. This is adequate but not explicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key constraint: the free tier only returns articles from the last 30 days, which is not in the schema. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or other potential behaviors, so it is only partially transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding a note as a separate clause. It is concise, clear, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the core function and a key limitation, but it would benefit from explicitly distinguishing when to use this tool versus the sibling get_top_headlines. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable.

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?

All 8 parameters have schema descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states. The 30-day note is a global constraint, not parameter-specific. Since the schema is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('search') and resource ('news articles') with a clear time constraint (past 30 days). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_top_headlines, which is about current headlines. The purpose is unambiguous and directly actionable.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling get_top_headlines. It implies a search over past articles, but there is no explicit comparison, exclusion, or alternative routing. The only guidance is the free-tier limitation, which is a behavioral note rather than usage guidance.

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