analyze_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. 'Run the agent' hints at an LLM-backed, non-deterministic and potentially costly invocation, but latency, cost, determinism, and failure modes are never mentioned; 'what the news means for the subject' gives only a vague sense of the output. The existence of an output schema spares it from describing return values, which limits the penalty.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose before the input alternatives and enumerations. The telegraphic 'role: ... language: ru or en' style is efficient, though slightly cryptic and mixed with the usage sentence.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a required profile_id, zero annotation coverage, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is thin. It never explains what profile_id is or why it is required, nor what 'the subject' refers to, and it gives no behavioral context for an agent-run analysis.

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 compensate, and it does partially: it clarifies the event_id-versus-title/text alternative and lists allowed values for role and language that are absent from the schema (role has no enum despite the description enumerating eight values). However, it omits url, publisher, and critically the required profile_id, leaving several parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 says it will 'Run the agent: what the news means for the subject,' which conveys that this is an analysis/interpretation tool rather than a raw feed, distinguishing it implicitly from siblings like news_feed and list_events. However, 'Run the agent' is vague phrasing and the subject of the analysis is never defined, so an agent cannot be fully certain what the tool produces without reading the schema.

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?

'Give an event_id, or a title and text' explains how to supply input but says nothing about when to choose this tool over news_feed, list_events, or search_research. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no statement of when interpretation is warranted versus simply fetching news.

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