get_malaysian_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Returns data from...' which implies a read-only operation, and it lists sources, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or whether it modifies anything. The behavior is typical of a fetch tool and nothing contradicts the absence of annotations, but the disclosure is minimal and not richly detailed.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by source listing, usage guidance, and parameter details. It is concise—only a few lines—and every sentence contributes value. The structure is logical and easy to scan, earning a 4 rather than a 5 only because the parameter section could be slightly more compact.

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 has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the two parameters, gives usage context, and lists sources. It does not mention edge cases like invalid source values or performance implications, but for a straightforward fetch tool with an output schema, the coverage is adequate. A 5 would require explicit mention of such edge cases or special conditions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: 'sources: Comma-separated sources: feeds, reddit, google' and 'max_items_per_source: Max items per source (default 15)'. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, specifying valid values and the purpose of each parameter. It could further clarify default behavior or constraints, but it is effective.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Fetch the latest Malaysian news, gossip, and viral stories.' It specifies the scope (latest, trending) and lists concrete source categories, which makes the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_malaysian_news, relying on the word 'latest' to imply a difference. That keeps it from a 5.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user asks about Malaysian news, gossip, what's trending in Malaysia, netizen buzz, viral stories, Malaysian politics, KL news, etc.' This clearly indicates when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the full exclusion logic but gives solid context.

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