get_news_details

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 states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, providing all necessary information in a clear and concise manner, earning its place fully.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and missing usage guidelines or behavioral details, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured data. It's minimal but viable for a simple lookup tool, aligning with a score of 3 as the baseline for adequacy with 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'title' clearly documented as 'The exact title of the news article'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific news article'), specifying what information is retrieved ('full description and URL'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_top_headlines (list vs. details) and summarize_news (summarize vs. full details), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from translate_to_korean, which could also retrieve details before translation, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific title), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_top_headlines for lists or summarize_news for summaries. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated, resulting in minimal guidance.

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