research_topic_news_scanner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost and payment rail (0.02 USDC on Base) and implies filtering via "sanitized," and "real-time" sets a freshness expectation. It still omits rate limits, source/result caps, latency or failure behavior, and the shape of what comes back.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the cost. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 scanner with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers capability, sources, and pricing, which is the essential context. It stops short of describing what a result looks like or how results are bounded, leaving an agent unable to predict the return payload.

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 query parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the field's domain ("keyword or protocol") without adding syntax, format, or multi-term handling guidance beyond the schema.

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 (scan) plus the resources covered (news, HackerNews, ArXiv) and the input domain (any keyword or protocol), so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema. It partially differentiates from the overlapping sibling hackernews_ai_digest by claiming multiple sources, but never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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?

"For any target keyword or protocol" implies the trigger condition, so usage is inferable. However, there is no when-not-to-use guidance and no routing against close siblings like hackernews_ai_digest or research_deep_web_dossier, which matters in a sibling set this large.

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