OpenNews MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool performs 'search' (implying read-only), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or error handling. The parameter documentation provides some operational context but doesn't constitute comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. While efficient, the 'Args:' section could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as separate documentation. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant 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?

For a 5-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent parameter documentation but lacks important context about the search results format, error conditions, and differentiation from sibling tools. The parameter coverage is comprehensive, but overall completeness is limited by missing behavioral and comparative 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all 5 parameters. Each parameter gets clear explanations including examples ('BTC,ETH'), format specifications ('type1:cat1,cat2;type2:cat3'), default values ('default 10'), constraints ('max 100'), and purpose clarification ('If true, only return news that have associated coins').

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 performs 'Advanced news search with multiple filters', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_news' or 'search_news_by_coin', which likely offer simpler or more targeted search capabilities.

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 search tools available (search_news, search_news_by_coin, get_news_by_engine, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this 'advanced' version different or when it's preferable to simpler alternatives.

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