subscribe_latest_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly explains that the tool opens a WebSocket connection, subscribes with optional filters, and collects messages for a bounded duration, including time and item limits. It does not mention return format or connection cleanup, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 efficient and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a focused Args list. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only operational details that matter for invocation, such as max wait time and max item count.

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 WebSocket subscription tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers connection behavior, filtering options, duration, and limits. It does not explicitly state what the return value looks like after messages are collected, which would make invocation fully unambiguous, but the provided details are largely sufficient.

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 must explain parameters. It does this thoroughly: every parameter is listed with meaning, defaults, and maximum bounds, plus concrete examples for coins and engine_types. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions.

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 specific action: 'Subscribe to real-time news updates via WebSocket.' This identifies both the verb (subscribe) and resource (real-time news feed), and distinguishes it from one-shot retrieval siblings like get_latest_news and search_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 clearly conveys a real-time streaming use case: connects to a WebSocket feed and collects incoming messages for a duration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context strongly implies this is for live updates rather than one-time queries.

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