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, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the content is editorially curated (not algorithmic/search-driven) and bold-linked article titles are converted to Markdown. It does not mention caching, freshness, or failure behavior, but for a read-only fetch the disclosure is substantive.

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-loaded with the source and scope, then sibling differentiation, then output formatting. Every sentence carries information; the Markdown note could arguably sit in a return-value section but does earn its place given there is no output schema.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-required-inputs read tool with no output schema, the description covers source, editorial nature, sibling alternatives, and output formatting (Markdown emphasis). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both lang and limit are already documented in the schema with defaults and the enum list. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get current events from Wikipedia's Main Page 'In the news' section) and names the exact source and scope. It explicitly differentiates itself from featured_article and on_this_day by framing itself as 'the present tense,' so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

It names the sibling tools (featured_article for long-form, on_this_day for historical) and gives the selecting condition ('news covers the present tense'). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the routing rule is clear and actionable.

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