Latest articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by listing the return fields (id, title, date, url, short summary), but says nothing about pagination limits, how many pages are available, or how results are ordered beyond 'newest'.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and use triggers, then a compact routing block for alternatives. Three sentences carry a lot of navigation value; the only slight cost is that the alternative-routing sentence is dense and mixes several sibling references.

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?

All five parameters are optional and documented, and since there is no output schema, describing the returned fields is the right compensating move. Complete enough to call correctly; only the pagination ceiling (page max 500, limit max 30) and result ordering nuances are left to the schema.

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 schema coverage at 80%, the baseline is a 3, and the description genuinely exceeds it by explaining how parameters interact: `category` best-lists/scores pair with `year` for yearly roundups, and `tag` should be resolved via gf_terms (with an example slug). It does not explain `page` vs `limit` interplay, which the schema already covers adequately.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List the newest Gamefa articles') plus the optional scoping dimension (section). It also separates itself from siblings such as gf_popular ('ranks by views'), gf_article ('read one') and gf_search_articles by implication, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are quoted ('what is new at Gamefa', 'latest PlayStation news'), and alternatives are named with their selecting conditions: best-lists/scores with `year` for top lists, `tag` from gf_terms for a single game, gf_article to read, gf_popular for view-ranked results.

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