get-nytimes-news

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 content categories and language options but lacks critical information: whether this is a search/filtering tool or returns trending/current news, pagination/rate limits, authentication requirements, freshness of data, or what the output format looks like. The description provides some context about content scope but misses key behavioral traits.

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 Chinese sentence that packs substantial information about content scope and language options. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from content details.

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 news retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers content scope and language but misses parameter explanations, behavioral context (how news is retrieved/filtered), and output expectations. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should do more.

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% (both parameters have no descriptions in schema). The description doesn't mention any parameters at all - it doesn't explain what 'region' or 'section' parameters do, their possible values, or how they affect the news retrieval. With 2 undocumented parameters and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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: '获取纽约时报新闻' (get New York Times news) with specific content categories (international politics, economic finance, social culture, science technology, art reviews) and language options (high-quality English or Chinese international news). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the New York Times source, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other news tools like get-bbc-news or get-theverge-news.

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. The description mentions content categories and languages, but doesn't specify scenarios where New York Times news would be preferred over BBC, The Verge, or other news sources in the sibling list. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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