news

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it names the external source (ESPN) and freshness ('Recent'), and critically warns that content is untrusted and must be reported, not obeyed – a prompt-injection guard the annotations do not express.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. Purpose and scope come first, and the safety caveat is a compact second sentence rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at the return shape (list of articles, fields, ordering). It covers purpose, source, and the untrusted-content caveat well, but leaves the meaning of limit and the player identifier format unexplained for a tool with zero parameter documentation.

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 carries the full burden. It mentions the 'player' parameter indirectly but gives no accepted format (name vs. ID), and it says nothing at all about 'limit', which defaults to 15 and governs result count. One of two parameters is entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource and source: 'Recent ESPN NBA news', with the scope qualifier 'optionally for one player'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like player_card, injuries, or transactions. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative to route against.

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 phrase 'optionally for one player' implies the two usage modes (league-wide feed vs. player-filtered feed), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives statement, no exclusions, and no routing to siblings like player_card or injuries.

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