sozcu_latest

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behaviors: archive pagination at 30 articles per page, a limit ceiling of 30, a default of today in the Europe/Istanbul timezone, and the returned article fields. It omits failure behavior for empty dates and any rate-limit or auth expectations, which are minor for a public read feed.

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 compact sentences front-load the resource and ordering, then pack parameter rules and the return shape into one clause. Nothing is filler, though the page-vs-count parenthetical costs clarity rather than saving space.

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?

Both optional parameters are fully characterized despite zero schema coverage, ordering is specified, the timezone default removes a common ambiguity, and an output schema exists so return values need not be elaborated. For a two-parameter read tool this is sufficient to call correctly on the first attempt.

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%, and the schema only declares an untyped string and an unbounded integer, so the description is doing real work by specifying DD-MM-YYYY formatting, the 'default today (Europe/Istanbul)' semantics, and the 1..30 limit range. The parenthetical '(paginates the archive, 30 articles per page)' is somewhat ambiguous about whether limit is an article count or a page index, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Latest Sözcü news from the dated all-news archive') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It implies but never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling sozcu_headlines, so the archive-vs-headlines distinction is left to inference.

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 context is implied by the date parameter and archive pagination, which suggests this is the tool for retrieving dated back-issues. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer sozcu_headlines, sozcu_search_news, or sozcu_get_article, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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