news_front_pages

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

Annotations already indicate readonly and idempotent behavior. The description adds the cache TTL of 4 hours, which is valuable for understanding data freshness. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no extraneous content, using a structured Args/Returns format. However, the Args section lacks explanations, making it less informative than it could be.

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?

The description covers the core function and cache behavior, but given the complexity of the input object and many sibling tools, it does not provide enough context for filtering or expected results. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but guidance on parameters is missing.

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 description merely lists parameter names (source_country, source_name, date, use_cache, response_format) without explaining their meaning, defaults, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not provide enough semantic detail.

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 tool returns digitized newspaper covers from 6000+ publications, a specific resource distinct from siblings like news_top_headlines or news_retrieve_article. The verb 'returns' and resource 'Zeitungscovers' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The agent receives no context for tool selection among many news siblings.

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