get-ifanr-news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what content is retrieved without mentioning any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or response format. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured by separating content types, though this doesn't significantly hinder 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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and output format, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 no information about the parameters (limit and offset) beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and two parameters, the description fails to compensate by explaining their purpose, such as pagination or result limiting, leaving the agent to guess based on generic parameter names.

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: '获取爱范儿科技快讯' (get ifanr tech news) with specific content details like '最新的科技产品、数码设备、互联网动态等前沿科技资讯' (latest tech products, digital devices, internet trends, and cutting-edge tech information). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the source (ifanr) and content focus, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other news tools beyond the name.

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 specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like get-36kr-trending or get-theverge-news, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the source name alone.

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