enrich_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the content focus ('non-commercial news and discussions') which adds some context, but fails to describe critical behaviors: what 'enrich' means operationally, what format the enrichment takes, whether this is a read-only or write operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds domain specificity. Every word earns its place, making this a model of brevity.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient information about what the tool actually does operationally, what results to expect, or how to use it effectively. For a tool with such sparse structured data, the description should do much more heavy lifting.

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 for the undocumented parameter. The description mentions 'web content focused on non-commercial news and discussions' which implies the 'query' parameter should relate to this domain, but provides no specifics about what constitutes appropriate queries, expected formats, or how the query influences results. The single parameter remains poorly defined despite the description's attempt at context.

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 the tool 'enrich context with web content' which provides a general purpose, but lacks specificity about what 'enrich' means operationally. It mentions 'focused on non-commercial news and discussions' which adds some domain context, but doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'enrich_web' or explain what makes it unique. The purpose is understandable but vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tools 'ask_fastgpt' or 'enrich_web', nor does it provide any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. The agent receives no help in selecting between available tools.

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