official_site_recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses that this is a read-only query of the official site and that output is a Markdown summary, plus that keyword narrows the results. It does not mention rate limits, freshness boundaries, or failure modes, but for a simple read tool the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first establishes tool, source URL, content scope, and output format; the second gives the key parameter example. The most load-bearing information is front-loaded.

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 is simple and the output schema is present, which covers return structure. However, the description does not explain three of the four parameters, nor does it position the tool against official_site_search, so an agent still has meaningful uncertainty about how to set days/category/max_results and when to choose this over its siblings.

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, but only keyword is given real meaning (with the '植保学院' example). days, category, and max_results are left to inference from their names and defaults, which is insufficient with no schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb–resource pair: query the NWAFU official website for recent activities, competitions, notices, and recruitment information, then output a Markdown summary. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from official_site_search or the other siblings, so it loses a point for lacking sibling differentiation.

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 intended use—retrieving recent official-site news—is implied and there is a concrete keyword example, but no alternative tools are named and no when-not-to-use conditions are given. Sibling tools like official_site_search could overlap, yet the description does not route the agent between them.

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