get-theverge-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 states what content is retrieved but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: no information about rate limits, authentication needs, freshness of data, pagination, format of returned content, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is purely about content scope without operational context.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('获取 The Verge 新闻') followed by content scope details. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool provides, with zero redundant information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers content scope but lacks crucial operational context: what format the news is returned in (articles, headlines, summaries), how many items, freshness, whether it's trending vs recent, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents the empty parameter set.

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 The Verge 新闻' (get The Verge news) with specific content areas listed (科技创新, 数码产品评测, 互联网趋势, 科技公司动态). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying The Verge as the source, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other news tools like get-nytimes-news or get-bbc-news beyond the source 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. With 19 sibling tools including other news sources (BBC, NYTimes) and content types (trending, rank), there's no indication of when The Verge content is preferred or what differentiates it from other English tech news sources like 9to5mac-news.

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