News

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a section returns the newest ~60 items with news and videos mixed, the 'type' field distinguishes them, and videos open on video.varzesh3.com. It does not mention paging behavior or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 the core purpose, then examples, then sibling handoff and the section-return caveat — every sentence does work. Slightly undermined by the dangling reference to 'type' as an output field that is never explained or defined elsewhere.

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 six-parameter, multi-mode read tool with no output schema, the description covers modes, scoping rules, the article handoff, and the shape of section results. The main residual gap is paging (skip max 500, take max 30) and the unexplained 'type' value set, minor against an otherwise complete definition.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by tying natural-language intents to concrete parameter combinations (e.g. wrestling → scope="section", section="Wrestling"), which is a mapping the schema alone does not supply. Paging parameters (skip/take) are not discussed, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 verb and resource ('Get Varzesh3 news headlines with a short summary') and enumerates the available modes (latest, most read, most commented, team/league/player/match/section). It also names the sibling that continues the workflow ('Call v3_article with a news id'), so it is clearly distinguishable from v3_article and v3_videos.

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?

Gives concrete intent-to-parameter mappings ('latest news', 'news about Esteghlal', 'wrestling news' → scope="section", section="Wrestling') and an explicit handoff rule to v3_article for full stories. Both when-to-use and which-alternative are stated, leaving little to inference.

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