get_high_score_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the sorting behavior (score descending), the default threshold, and the maximum result limit. It does not describe the response format or mention threshold inclusivity, but for a read-only retrieval tool the key behavioral traits are sufficiently covered.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines what the tool returns, the ordering, and the parameter semantics. It could be more complete by describing the expected response shape or article fields, but that is not strictly necessary for correct invocation.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: min_score is a score threshold and limit is the maximum result count with an explicit max of 100. This adds meaningful semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type and default values.

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 a specific action ('Get'), a resource ('news articles'), and a unique differentiator ('by AI score, sorted by score descending'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_latest_news, search_news, and get_news_by_source, even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you want highly-rated news filtered by a minimum AI score. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_news or search_news_advanced, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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