Get BBC and Sky news summary

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it ranks events, relies on publisher-supplied summaries, provides source corroboration, and may return partial-feed warnings. This goes beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the return payload is listed concisely. Every clause carries information.

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?

Given the rich input schema, full parameter descriptions, an output schema, and a complete set of safety annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors including rankings, source corroboration, and partial-feed warnings. Nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully self-documenting. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions corroboration and ranking, which loosely relate to the sources and maxStories parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch and rank') and a clear resource ('important recent events from official BBC News and Sky News RSS feeds'). It also states what is returned, which distinguishes it from siblings like search_news and list_news_feeds.

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 description implies this tool is for getting ranked news summaries from BBC and Sky, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_news or list_news_feeds. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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