dw_latest_articles

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: results are ordered newest first and scoped to a single language. It says nothing about how far back 'latest' reaches, whether pagination exists, or how an unsupported language code is handled.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose, with parameter notes compressed into a compact clause. Nothing is redundant. The terse, note-like phrasing is efficient but slightly telegraphic, which costs it the top score.

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?

With two optional parameters and an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description covers everything an agent needs to construct a call. The remaining gaps, the definition of 'latest' as a time window and pagination behavior, are minor for a feed-listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it gives example language codes ('en', 'de', 'fa-ir') and states the limit range 1..50 with a default of 10. Both parameters gain meaning that the bare schema does not provide. The only gap is the absence of any note on language-code format or fallback behavior.

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 resource and scope: 'Latest DW articles in one language, newest first.' That is a clear verb+resource with an explicit sort order and a single-language constraint. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as dw_headlines or dw_search_news, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'in one language' tells the agent this is a per-language feed rather than a cross-language or keyword search, which nudges it away from dw_search_news. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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