latest_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: content is limited to feed descriptions rather than full articles, and calls consume no API-Football budget. It omits freshness/caching behavior and pagination, but the read-only nature and cost profile are covered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the filter list and the cost caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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?

For a zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, the definition covers source, filters, and cost, which is close to sufficient. It does not describe the returned item shape (fields available for filtering suggest title/summary/source/tags) or result ordering, which would help an agent use the output.

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 schema already documents all five optional filters with examples and the limit bounds. The description only restates the filter names, adding no semantics such as matching behavior or combination rules, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Latest headlines from configured public football RSS feeds" names a specific resource (news headlines) and its origin (configured RSS feeds), which lets an agent distinguish it from API-backed siblings like live_scores or fixtures. It stops short of naming news_search, so the distinction from the most confusable sibling is only implied.

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 note that it "does not spend the API-Football budget" implicitly tells the agent to prefer this tool when cost matters, and the filter list hints at narrowing use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no reference to the sibling news_search or list_sources, leaving the choice to inference.

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