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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the result fields and the capacity limit ('Aceita até 100 consultas por chamada'), which helps set caller expectations.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and a capacity constraint. Every sentence contributes distinct 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?

Despite helpful safety annotations and a clear one-line purpose, the tool has 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description explains only 'periodo' and loosely references 'consultas', leaving little guidance for the remaining parameters. An agent would likely struggle to construct a fully valid call beyond the required 'consultas' field.

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%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It explains the role of 'periodo' and hints at 'consultas' via the 100-query limit, but it does not clarify 'pais', 'local', 'idioma', 'limite', or 'pagina'. This leaves most required parameter choices undocumented.

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 ('Busca'), a clear resource ('notícias no Google News'), and the main returned fields ('título, fonte, data e link'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinct from sibling Google search tools such as busca_google_web, busca_google_imagens, and busca_google_academico.

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 gives clear usage context: combine with the 'periodo' parameter to monitor a subject over recent hours/days. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5, but the guidance is actionable and not implied.

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