get_top_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a selection behavior (most important, tech/AI prioritized) and a temporal aspect ('right now'), but does not disclose potential limitations like number of results, ordering specifics, or whether it is read-only. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences, immediately front-loading the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and every sentence contributes meaning: the first defines the output, the second adds a key prioritization detail. This is an model of efficiency.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential selection criteria. However, given the large set of sibling tools, it would benefit from clarifying its relationship to get_news (e.g., 'top stories vs. all news'). The gap is minor but present, so a 4 is appropriate.

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, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's mention of 'Tech/AI prioritized' provides some context about what the tool returns without needing to reference parameters.

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 fetches the most important global news, with a specific verb+resource (Get + top news). It adds a distinguishing feature 'Tech/AI prioritized' that differentiates it from generic news tools, though it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings like get_technology_news or get_news.

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 implies usage for obtaining top global news but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_news or category-specific tools. There are no exclusions or comparative examples, leaving the selection decision to the agent based solely on the name and vague description.

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