get_news

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does deliver the safety profile directly: 'Read-only and idempotent,' which tells the agent it can retry freely without side effects. It also implies no auth is needed by citing the public Google News RSS feed. It omits other relevant traits such as rate limiting, result freshness/ordering, or behavior when the feed returns nothing, which is why it lands at adequate rather than strong.

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?

Three short sentences in a sensible order: capability first, then triggering context, then the safety properties. Nothing is padded or repeated. Slightly shy of 5 only because the RSS-source clause and the read-only note could be folded more tightly, but no sentence is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (headlines, summaries, sources, timestamps) and the safety posture, which is the essential information. Minor gaps remain around empty-result and volume behavior, but an agent could invoke this correctly from what is stated.

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 100%, so both `topic` and `max_articles` are already documented with examples and bounds. The description adds only marginally by broadening the notion of a topic to 'any topic or keyword,' and it never mentions `max_articles` in prose. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the explanatory work.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') plus the exact resource and payload: 'current news headlines, summaries, sources, and publication timestamps for any topic or keyword via Google News RSS.' It also identifies the underlying source, so an agent knows precisely what it gets back. No sibling tool covers news, so no differentiation is required.

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?

It gives concrete triggering contexts: 'monitoring breaking news, market updates, or industry trends.' That is clear when-to-use guidance with no misleading exclusions. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing to a nearby alternative (e.g. web_search for non-news queries), so it is not a full 5.

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