get_pulse_latest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses access constraints (free, rate limited to 1 per 5 minutes, no API key) and mentions that it tracks story formation across sources. However, it doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation or describe the response structure beyond field names, leaving some ambiguity about output shape.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the resource and key content, the second adds access details and a brief behavioral context. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, content fields, and access constraints. It would be more complete if it noted that it returns the most recent digest (implied by 'latest'), but overall it's sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns and its purpose, which is the main semantic value an agent needs. This meets the baseline of 4 for 0-param tools.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('the full Pulse narrative intelligence digest'), and lists specific components it returns (narrativeArcs, actionableSignals, sourceMix, insights). It implies comprehensiveness with 'full' which helps distinguish from sibling tools like get_pulse_brief, but doesn't explicitly name a contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_pulse_brief for summaries, get_pulse_narratives for specific arcs). Mentions rate limiting and free access but doesn't say when this tool is the right choice.

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