get_news_recap

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 that the output is 'concise narrative summarizing' and mentions update frequencies ('updated hourly'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage. However, the formatting with line breaks could be slightly more compact while maintaining readability.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks information about the return format (beyond 'concise narrative'), error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with 2 parameters and behavioral complexity, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 fully. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: category (required, category code, references get_categories, lists popular choices) and timeframe (time window, default '12h', specific recommendations for different categories). This adds substantial 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get', 'summarizing') and resource ('AI-generated news recap/summary for a specific category'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on recaps/summaries rather than raw news items, categories, or enriched/search results.

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 ('great for getting up to speed quickly') and references an alternative tool ('Use get_categories to see options'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to other siblings like get_enriched_news or get_latest_news.

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