list_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the data source ('BPS website') and the general nature of the news, but gives no information about pagination, output format, filters, rate limits, or any other operational behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotation support.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that are both essential. The first sentence states the primary action and resource, and the second sentence adds a crucial distinction from BRS. There is no fluff or repetition, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Despite the tool's relative simplicity, the description lacks important contextual details about how the tool behaves in practice. It does not mention how the parameters interact, whether results are paginated, what fields are returned (no output schema exists), or any limitations. This makes the description incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 already has 100% parameter-description coverage, with descriptions for page, domain, and keyword. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies here.

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 function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('news from the BPS website'), and further distinguishes it from BRS (Official Statistics News) by specifying 'general BPS news items'. This effectively differentiates the tool from the alternative news type, making it easy for an agent to identify its purpose.

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 by noting that this tool lists general BPS news as opposed to BRS (Official Statistics News). While this implies appropriate usage, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance beyond the BRS distinction, so it falls just short of a 5.

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