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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe, external-fetch nature is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral datum — the 5-point cost per call — but says nothing about result caps, pagination limits, or what happens when a keyword returns no news.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's function and return shape, then the Korean mirror and cost. The bilingual duplication is a deliberate pattern but does slightly inflate length; the English sentence alone carries the full payload.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and it discloses the cost. It falls short only on pagination/result-volume expectations and any failure behavior for a keyword with no results.

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 100%, so both parameters (keyword 1~200 chars, page 1~10) are already documented in the schema. The description only says results are returned 'for a keyword' and adds nothing about the keyword length limit or the page parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Google News search') and enumerates the returned fields (title, publisher, published time, link), which is more than a bare restatement of the name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the other search siblings by scope ('news'), but it never explicitly names or contrasts with google_search, google_image_search, or google_shopping_search.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives named among the many sibling search tools. The only supplemental guidance is the per-call cost, which is a pricing fact rather than a usage rule.

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