news_alert_check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results (last_checked, trigger_count) are persisted in the Alert-File, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief intro, a bullet with key behavior, and then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the language is German which may limit readability for some.

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 complexity (checking alerts against news data) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description explains the input parameters and basic behavior. However, it could elaborate on what the 'Pruefergebnis' contains beyond Triggered/OK status, and how the persistence affects subsequent operations.

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 schema coverage is 0% for the top-level 'params' parameter, but the nested properties 'alert_id' and 'response_format' have descriptions. The description repeats these: 'alert_id (leer = alle), response_format' and adds the return type 'str', but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the verb 'Prueft' (checks), the resource 'Alert gegen aktuelle Nachrichtendaten', and the scope 'alle (oder einen spezifischen)'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like news_alert_create or news_alert_list.

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 usage context: 'Pro Alert 1 API-Call. Kein Cache – Alert-Checks verwenden immer aktuelle Daten.' It implies this tool is for checking alerts with fresh data, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like news_alert_list or specify when to use it over other tools.

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