search_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool searches 'by keyword in text content,' which implies a text-based search, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or what 'crypto news' encompasses (e.g., sources, time range). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The additional parameter details are concise and relevant. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter info more seamlessly.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., what fields are included in results), error handling, and how it differs from other search tools. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively in context.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, providing only titles and types. The description explains that 'keyword' is a 'Search term (e.g. "bitcoin", "SEC", "ETF")' and 'limit' has a 'default 10, max 100,' which clarifies usage and constraints not in the schema. However, it doesn't fully detail all parameter nuances (e.g., keyword matching rules).

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: 'Search crypto news by keyword in text content.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (crypto news), and scope (by keyword in text content). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_news_advanced' or 'search_news_by_coin,' which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 multiple sibling tools like 'search_news_advanced' and 'search_news_by_coin,' there's no indication of when this simpler keyword search is preferred or what limitations it has compared to more advanced options.

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