ygo_get_news

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight; it does convey that this is an external RSS pull rather than a database write, which signals a read-only operation. It does not disclose freshness/caching behavior, ordering of results, whether categories are interleaved, or what happens when the feed is unreachable.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the source and content scope following. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema absent, the description covers source, scope, and content types adequately. The only meaningful gap is result ordering/recency and how the limit interacts with the multiple content categories.

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% for the single `limit` parameter, so the schema already documents it and a baseline 3 applies. The description adds no clarification such as whether `limit` caps total articles or applies per category — a real ambiguity the schema does not resolve.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Fetch") with a specific resource (news), then enumerates the content types (card reveals, banlist news, tournament coverage) and names the source (YGOrganization RSS). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from every sibling, none of which are news tools, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 content categories imply when to call it (user wants recent news or banlist announcements), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative among the many siblings. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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