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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is already present, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting, rate limits, or that it returns a list of news items). The description merely restates the tool's basic function.

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 sentence with no wasted words, achieving conciseness. However, it may be too terse for adequate guidance, but conciseness is still high.

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 five parameters, no required fields, and no enums, the tool is relatively simple. However, the description offers no insight into the return structure (though output schema exists), filtering behavior, or relationship to other tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'query' repeated without details), and the tool description does not clarify parameter usage, such as expected formats or constraints for 'limit', 'cursor', 'source', or 'language'. Despite 100% schema coverage, the descriptions add no value.

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 the verb 'Search' and resource 'AI Pricing Hub news items', clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., which aspects of news), but it's sufficiently distinct from siblings like search_models.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like search_models, the description should clarify if search_news is for textual news content versus model data, but it does not.

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