get_news_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content ('full free-tier details including headline, sentiment, categories, sources, and tweet URL'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get').

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 with a clear purpose statement first, followed by return details and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context: purpose, return content, parameter semantics, and prerequisites. The main gap is lack of explicit behavioral details like error cases or rate limits, but it's reasonably complete for this complexity level.

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 compensate. It fully explains the single parameter's purpose ('The news item ID'), source ('returned in results from get_latest_news or search_news'), and format (implied as string). This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Get a specific news item') and resource ('by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_latest_news (list) or search_news (search). It explicitly identifies the target resource and method of retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('by its ID') and mentions where the ID comes from ('returned in results from get_latest_news or search_news'), establishing prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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