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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core action but omits important details such as URL validation, duplicate handling, whether the addition is immediate or persistent, any required permissions, and what the return value or error behavior is. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds a brief purpose statement. Every word earns its place.

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 add operation with two parameters, the description covers the basic function and purpose. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values, success/failure indicators, or side effects. It is minimally viable but could do more to explain the full lifecycle of adding a news source.

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 100% with both parameters clearly described in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it mentions RSS URL and personalization of media, but does not elaborate on parameter formats, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Añade un diario o fuente de noticias usando su URL de RSS' (Adds a newspaper or news source using its RSS URL). It uses a specific verb ('Añade') and resource ('fuente de noticias') and distinguishes from siblings like remove_news_source, list_news_sources, and get_daily_news.

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 gives clear context for use: adding a news source to customize which media appear in news consumption ('Permite personalizar de qué medios se quieren obtener noticias'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names, but the purpose and context are clear enough for an add operation among sibling list/remove/get tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (headlines and brief summaries) and the source selection behavior (all configured or indicated). However, it does not mention side effects, read-only nature, or potential edge cases like the default for 'only_today' conflicting with the 'del día' wording. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant words. Every phrase adds value: 'todas las fuentes configuradas o de las indicadas' provides scope, and the return format is clearly stated. Excellent conciseness.

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 is a straightforward news fetcher with clear parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return value. The only minor gap is the potential ambiguity between 'del día' and the 'only_today' default, but the schema clarifies this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it reiterates the source selection concept. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Obtiene el resumen de noticias del día' (gets the daily news summary) from all configured or specified sources, and returns headlines with brief summaries. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage sources (add/remove/list), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a daily news summary is needed, optionally filtered by specific sources. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly about source management, so the context is sufficient. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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

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 only states the core action and gives no details on side effects, read-only status, return format, or authentication requirements. For a simple list operation, this is minimal transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states functionality without any redundant words or tangential information. It earns its place efficiently.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core purpose. It could be enhanced by detailing the return structure, but the simplicity of the operation makes the current level reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the scope ("todos... actualmente"), confirming no filtering or arguments are needed. This aligns well with the empty 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 uses the specific verb "Muestra" (shows) with a clear resource "diarios y fuentes de noticias configurados actualmente" (newspapers and news sources currently configured). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add/remove_news_source and get_daily_news by indicating it's a listing operation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to view all currently configured news sources. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the sibling tool names imply a separation of concerns, and the intent is unambiguous for a list operation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the removal is permanent, what happens if the name is not found, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, direct sentence with the verb front-loaded. It is appropriately concise and contains no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no annotations or output schema. The description adequately states the action but lacks behavioral context such as return values, error handling, or idempotency, making it complete for a basic action but not fully contextual.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the 'name' parameter, including an example. The description reiterates the parameter but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Elimina' = removes) and the resource ('diario o fuente de noticias de la lista') with the method ('por su nombre'). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools add_news_source, list_news_sources, and get_daily_news.

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 removing a news source by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., behavior if the source doesn't exist). The sibling names help, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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