get_breaking

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers behavioral traits well: it states defaults (min_score=7, limit default 20 but capped at 50), handling of empty values for country and topic, and the brevity of results. It does not mention read-only nature, but that is implied by 'get'. The cap on limit is an important behavioral detail.

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 very concise, with 5 short lines front-loading the purpose and then listing parameters. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy. It efficiently conveys essential information.

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 filtered-list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers all parameters, defaults, and a sibling reference. It could optionally describe the return format (articles), but that is inferable. The lack of output schema is not a gap here.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: country (ISO-2, empty=all), topic (see get_feed, empty=all), min_score (default 7), and limit (max 50). It adds constraints and defaults beyond the schema's bare types.

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 'Get recent breaking news (high urgency)' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing urgency and a default min_score, which is unique to this tool. The reference to get_feed for topic filtering also helps differentiate.

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 implies usage for urgent/breaking news by setting a default min_score of 7, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to alternatives like get_feed or search_news. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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