get_politics_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, output format, data source, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The simple statement 'Get political news' adds no 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 a single concise sentence with no wordiness, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it is extremely minimal and could be considered under-specified, though it does contain the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with zero parameters and an output schema, so the basic invocation is clear. However, given the lack of annotations and minimal description, there is a gap in behavioral context and usage guidance. It is adequate for a trivial getter but not comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to explain. The schema shows no properties, and the description adds no parameter-related meaning.

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 retrieves political news, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('political news'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_technology_news by naming the category, but adds no additional scope or filtering details beyond what the tool name already implies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_news or get_top_news. There is no mention of intended use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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