summarize_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool uses AI for summarization and provides a concise summary, but lacks details on how the AI behaves (e.g., model type, accuracy, language support), any rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for an AI-based tool with no structured annotations.

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 with two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior.

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 complexity of an AI summarization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary output looks like (e.g., format, key points), potential limitations, or how it interacts with sibling tools. This leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('text' and 'maxLength') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on 'text' content. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Summarize a news article using AI' specifies the verb (summarize) and resource (news article), and 'Provides a concise summary of the content' reinforces this. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_news_details' or 'get_top_headlines', which might also involve news content processing, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 when to choose summarization over getting details or headlines, or any prerequisites or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection among the siblings.

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