get_daily_news

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.