get_news_by_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default and maximum for 'limit' and indicates that engine_type and news_type are required codes. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, error handling for invalid codes, or ordering of results. This is adequate for a simple getter but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line summary, a short usage prerequisite, then a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value and the essential scoping information is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers all required parameters, the prerequisite call, and the limit constraint. It lacks return-value details, but given the simple list-like nature of the tool and the presence of many sibling search tools, it is nearly complete. The missing output shape is the main gap.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter with concrete examples and constraints. It clarifies that engine_type is something like 'news' or 'meme', news_type is a source code like 'Bloomberg', and limit has a default and maximum. This goes well beyond the bare schema types.

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 action with 'Get news articles from a specific source' and identifies the key parameters that determine the source. It is not a tautology and the verb-resource pairing ('get news') is specific enough to distinguish from search-oriented siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call 'get_news_sources first to see available engine types and news type codes', providing a clear prerequisite and routing hint. It doesn't discuss when to prefer other news-fetching siblings like search_news or get_latest_news, but the 'use X first' guidance is strong and useful. A fully explicit when-not-to-use list would be needed for a 5.

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