get_news_by_topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about recency and predefined categories, but does not disclose behaviors such as how invalid or unknown topic values are handled. With annotation coverage present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 with no filler: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage routing to the sibling tool. The information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 annotations, complete input schema, and output schema, the definition is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is that it does not point the agent to get_categories for discovering valid predefined topic values, though the examples and 'predefined' wording partially compensate.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful semantic value to the required 'topic' parameter by clarifying it must be a predefined category and supplying concrete examples, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Topic to search for articles.'

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('recent Google News articles from a predefined Google News topic category'), and it explicitly distinguishes the tool from get_news_by_keyword. The examples BUSINESS, TECHNOLOGY, and SPORTS make the purpose immediately recognizable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for topic category browsing' and names the exact alternative for free-form queries, get_news_by_keyword. This leaves no ambiguity about which tool fits which scenario.

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