get-bbc-news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what content is available but lacks behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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 in Chinese that front-loads the core purpose and lists content areas. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could be more structured for clarity.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose and content scope but lacks details on parameters, return values, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 for two undocumented parameters (category, edition). It lists content categories but doesn't explain how they map to the 'category' parameter or what 'edition' controls. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully clarify parameter usage.

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: '获取 BBC 新闻' (get BBC news) with specific content areas listed (global news, UK news, business, politics, health, education, technology, entertainment). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying BBC as the source, but doesn't explicitly contrast functionality differences beyond the source.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lists content areas but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like get-nytimes-news or get-theverge-news.

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