pending_news

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real context beyond that: the queue-draining behavior, the 48h expiry, and the fact that dismissal permanently suppresses the URL. It doesn't explain pagination or ordering, but the mutation and lifecycle semantics are well 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then gives the per-item workflow in one compact thought. Efficient and well ordered, though the path-like parameter listing (`one_line_claim` / `stance` / ...) is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Together with the annotations, the description covers the workflow, the sibling handoff, the queue lifecycle, and the expiry window — everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both limit and dismiss_urls are already documented. The description reinforces the intent of dismiss_urls (irrelevant items passed back), which is marginal added value over the schema's own 'they won't be offered again'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (news the backend fetched but did not normalize) and the reason it exists (reasoning is delegated to the agent). It is distinguishable from ingest_event and the other news siblings by scope: this is the raw intake queue, not the ingestion or source-management tool.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call ingest_event for relevant items, pass irrelevant ones back as dismiss_urls. It also states the lifecycle condition (items leave the queue once ingested or dismissed, expire after 48h), so when-to-use and when-it-disappears are both answered.

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