get_f1_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the RSS feed limitation (only recent articles), temporal constraints (past few days/weeks, not historical), and the filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured with clear sections (limitation, usage guidelines, sources, args, returns, examples) and uses formatting effectively. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and complex usage constraints. Some sections could be more concise, but overall it's efficiently organized with front-loaded critical 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, limitations, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and includes practical examples. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on usage context rather than repeating output details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all 9 parameters. It lists each parameter with clear examples and usage notes (e.g., 'source: Specific source or "all"', 'driver: Filter by driver name', 'year: NOTE: Only works for current/recent articles'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose as retrieving 'RECENT Formula 1 news from 25+ authoritative F1 sources via RSS feeds.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('F1 news'), and scope ('recent'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on news rather than telemetry, results, or other race data. The opening 'PRIMARY TOOL' declaration reinforces its distinct role.

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 explicit guidance on when to use and when not to use the tool, with dedicated 'USE THIS TOOL FOR' and 'DO NOT use this tool for' sections. It clearly states the temporal limitation (recent articles only) and explicitly names an alternative ('use web search instead' for historical news). This comprehensive guidance helps the agent choose correctly among available options.

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