get_latest_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns titles, summaries, and links, but does not disclose any additional behaviors (e.g., recency guarantees, rate limits). With annotations in place, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and immediately specifies what is returned. No wasted words, and it reads naturally.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return structure and source. It doesn't mention pagination or sorting, but those are not critical for this tool's typical use. Slightly more detail on response format could push it to 5, but 4 is fair.

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?

The schema provides a full description of the `limit` parameter (range and default), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter, 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('latest crypto news and market insights published on CoinRebate'), and the output ('articles with titles, summaries, and links'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on fees, referrals, and compliance—not news.

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 purpose is so specific that an agent would naturally use this for news retrieval. However, there is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives. Given the obvious distinction from siblings, a 4 is appropriate.

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