Search AI News

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns only a summary and canonical link, and never the full body, which is a key behavioral constraint. It does not mention response ordering, pagination details, or rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences long and immediately states the main action, followed by a concise note about the return type. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the source, and the shape of the return value (summary + link). It lacks detailed response field documentation, but the given hints are sufficient for basic invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, offset, category) with clear explanations and defaults. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a verb ('List'), a resource ('recent AI news articles'), and a source ('SWEN.AI'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it returns 'summary + canonical link, never the full article body', which directly contrasts with a potential article-fetching 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing recent AI news from SWEN.AI) and an implicit exclusion ('never the full article body'), which signals not to use it for full-article retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for that purpose, so it falls short of full guidance.

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