Tech trends digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the live/recency dimension ('right now') and that it is a single combined call, but says nothing about freshness guarantees, per-source failure behavior, latency, or the shape of the merged result. Useful but thin against a lower annotation bar.

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 tight sentences with the deliverable front-loaded and the use case as a second beat. No redundant restatement of the title, no filler; every clause adds information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey something about what the digest returns (per-source sections? counts? links?), and it does not. Combined with 3 undocumented parameters, an agent knows the intent but not the inputs' accepted values or the response structure.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the burden. Naming 'arXiv papers' and 'GitHub Trending' loosely maps to arxiv_categories and github_language, but per_source is never explained, and no defaults (cs.AI/cs.LG/cs.CL, 10) or the max of 25 are surfaced. Partial compensation only.

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 deliverable ('one-shot digest of what's trending right now') and enumerates the exact three sources it aggregates: HN front page, arXiv, and GitHub Trending. Because those are the very resources the sibling tools (hackernews_stories, arxiv_search, github_trending) target individually, the aggregation framing implicitly distinguishes this tool from all of them.

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?

Gives a clear use-case trigger: 'Good starting point for "what's new in tech/AI today?"'. That tells the agent when this tool is the right first call. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming siblings (e.g., 'use arxiv_search for targeted queries instead'), so it is context without routing.

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