get_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Get news by category' and lists categories. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are returned. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but the description adds no deeper behavioral context beyond the name.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then usage, then the category values list. Every sentence contributes, and the long list of categories is necessary since it defines the parameter's allowed values. No fluff.

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 there are 2 optional parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description covers the main purpose and category values but lacks explicit mention of defaults (category defaults to 'technology', limit to 10) and does not clarify how this tool relates to the category-specific siblings. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent that might need to choose between get_news and get_ai_news.

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?

The description lists the allowed values for the category parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema (which only specifies a string with a default). However, it says nothing about the limit parameter, and the overall schema coverage is low, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get news by category.' It also hints at distinguishing from siblings by mentioning 'specific domain,' but it does not explicitly compare against the many category-specific sibling tools, so it misses the full 5.

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 gives a clear usage context (when the user asks for a specific domain) and lists valid categories, which is helpful. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_top_news or get_ai_news, leaving room for ambiguity.

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