sellthenews-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching 'latest news stories' and 'editorially pinned stories', but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, response format, or error handling. For a read operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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 read-only tool with 5 documented parameters but no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about response format, error conditions, and behavioral constraints that would help an agent use it effectively. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the overall context remains incomplete.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have provided context about how parameters interact.

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 ('fetch') and resource ('latest news stories from sellthenews.org'), and specifies inclusion of 'editorially pinned stories' which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'search_news' beyond the 'latest' vs 'search' distinction, which is somewhat implied but not stated.

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 like 'search_news'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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