get_game_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return fields (title, contents, URL, date, feed_label) and gives an example, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. This is sufficient for a simple read-only query, but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence for the main purpose, a sentence listing return fields, and a usage example. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description need not explain return values in detail. It already covers the core fields and provides an example, while the schema handles the rest. It lacks edge-case or error handling details, but these are not critical for a straightforward query 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?

The input schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., app_id is the Steam App ID, count is the number of news items, max_length is the character limit). The description's usage example (app_id=730, count=5, max_length=300) adds a concrete illustration but no new semantic meaning 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?

The description explicitly states it queries news and updates for a specific game ('특정 게임의 뉴스와 업데이트를 조회합니다'), making the operation clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_game_details and get_user_reviews, which serve different purposes.

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 a usage example with concrete parameter values, implying the tool is for retrieving game news. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description.

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