science

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' news (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or potential errors. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by including key usage details without adding unnecessary length.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., list of articles, error handling), behavioral traits, or how it integrates with siblings. For a tool with no structured metadata, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'lr' documented as 'language region, ex: en-US'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 the tool's purpose ('get science news from Google News') with a clear verb and resource, but it doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'business', 'health', or 'technology' which likely fetch different news categories. The purpose is understandable but generic within the context of similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or other category-specific tools (e.g., 'technology'). The description implies it's for science news, but it doesn't specify scenarios, exclusions, or how it differs from siblings beyond the category name.

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