get_top_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' news stories, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, whether authentication is needed, any rate limits, or how the 'topness' is determined. This is a significant gap for a tool that retrieves external data.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as mentioning that it returns a list of articles. It earns a 4 for being efficient but not maximally helpful.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how 'top' is defined, what regions or languages are covered, or any limitations. While the output schema exists and the rules state it need not describe return values, the description still lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope and behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all four parameters (period, full_data, summarize, max_results) already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable per baseline guidelines.

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 'Get top news stories from Google News' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'top news stories from Google News'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_news_by_keyword, get_news_by_location, get_news_by_topic, and get_trending_terms by focusing specifically on top stories from Google News, which is a distinct and well-understood category.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention any scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, which is insufficient for an agent to make optimal selection decisions.

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