get_stories

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains scoring criteria, regional grouping, and the Western source cap. This gives the agent insight into result sorting and diversity, though it omits details like rate limits or pagination.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then add scoring and grouping details. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the tool's key behavior—scoring, grouping, and diversity—making it complete for a filtered list retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds indirect context by explaining how results are scored and grouped, but does not elaborate on the parameters' semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states it gets top scored tech stories with global diversity. It highlights key differentiators: scoring by relevance, novelty, and velocity; grouping by region; and a Western source cap. This sets it apart from siblings like search_stories and get_regions.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving top scored stories, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_stories or get_digest. No exclusions or context for when not to use it are provided.

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