get_news

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the response structure, listing the specific article fields returned, which is beyond the annotation coverage. No contradictory behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded, starting with the main purpose and then adding details on the return format and parameter. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff.

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 simplicity, the description covers the purpose, the parameter, and the return structure. The output schema exists to detail return fields, so the description does not need to repeat them, and it doesn't. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 provides only the parameter name, type, and default, with 0% description coverage. The description adds crucial meaning by explaining that 'limit' is the maximum number of articles to return and notes the default of 10, fully compensating for the schema's lack of description.

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 fetches recent USL Super League news articles, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_teams and get_standings by focusing on news. The return fields are also listed, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 is for news articles but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools cover teams, standings, and scores, so usage can be inferred, but no direct guidance is provided.

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