get_news_today

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the news headlines,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of headlines, pagination). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The additional parameter details are concise and relevant, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter info more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has incomplete context for reliable invocation, though the parameter semantics help.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'keyword' is for 'searching in the news' and 'date' should be in 'YYYY-MM-DD format,' providing context that the schema lacks. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail constraints like date ranges or keyword length.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the news headlines for a specific keyword and date.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('news headlines'), and scope ('for a specific keyword and date'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_news_and_sentiments,' which might offer similar functionality with additional features.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_news_and_sentiments,' leaving the agent without context for tool selection. Usage is implied only through the parameters, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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