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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying return of full article text, Boolean operator support, and filterable fields (language, country, category, date range). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, second sentence adds details. No redundancy or extraneous information. Highly efficient.

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?

The description inaccurately claims a 'category' filter exists, but the input schema does not include a 'category' parameter. This misleads the agent. Additionally, pagination via 'page_size' is not mentioned. Given the output schema exists, return value explanation is not required, but the inaccuracy significantly reduces completeness.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds context about scope (70+ countries, 18+ languages) and Boolean support, but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches news articles by keyword, specifies the scope (70+ countries, 18+ languages), and mentions returns full article text with Boolean and filtering capabilities. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'currents.news.latest' and 'currents.news.categories' by focusing on keyword search across many sources.

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 implies usage for keyword-based news search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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