Google News13 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mandatory 'keyword' parameter but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., article list, summaries), any limitations (e.g., result count, pagination), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and key parameter. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence slightly repeats schema information without adding significant new value, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., news articles, metadata), how results are structured, any sorting/filtering options beyond parameters, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns varied data, more context is needed for effective agent use.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('keyword' and 'lr') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by restating that 'keyword' is mandatory but doesn't provide additional context like search syntax examples, keyword formatting, or how 'lr' affects results beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 for news from Google News based on keywords.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('news from Google News'), and mechanism ('based on keywords'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'latest' or 'world' which might also retrieve news content.

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 sibling tools like 'business', 'entertainment', and 'world' that appear to be news category-specific, there's no indication whether 'search' is for general keyword searches while others are for predefined categories, or how they relate. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternatives are mentioned.

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