get_news

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure (headline, publication date, summary, link to ESPN) and the default limit, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention any potential variability, such as the number of articles when 'recent' is ambiguous or possible downtime, but these are minor given the scope.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose statement, follows with the return details, and ends with a parameter explanation. Each sentence earns its place without redundant filler. The use of an 'Args:' section makes the parameter documentation easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, and the description covers the purpose, return fields, and parameter semantics. Annotations provide the safety and idempotency profile. No further details like authentication or rate limits are necessary for a read-only news-fetching tool, making the description complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. The description provides clear semantics: 'limit: Maximum number of articles to return (default 10).' This explains both the purpose of the parameter and its default value, which is not available in the schema beyond the default attribute. The explanation is precise and sufficient for a single parameter.

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 and resource: 'Get recent MLS news articles.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on teams, scores, rosters, schedules, and standings, as news articles are a distinct resource. The specificity of 'recent MLS news' leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 implies the tool should be used when a user wants recent MLS news, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. While the sibling tools are clearly different in topic, there is no direct guidance such as 'for scores, use get_scoreboard' or 'when you need news, use get_news.' The usage context is inferred rather than explicitly provided.

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