Google News22 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it fails to mention whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), pagination behavior, result limits, or what happens when no articles match. It only states the tool 'allows you to filter' without explaining the filtering logic (AND/OR behavior).

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Find articles by keywords'). It is slightly awkward ('allows you to... to get specific result') and ends with vague filler ('specific result'), but remains appropriately brief for the tool's complexity.

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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core functionality (keyword search) and major filter categories. However, it omits pagination behavior (page/limit parameters) and provides no hints about the return format or result structure, leaving significant gaps.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters including detailed query syntax for the 'q' parameter and ISO codes for country/language. The description adds marginal value by confirming the filterable fields but does not provide syntax guidance beyond what the schema already contains, warranting the baseline score.

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 'Find[s] articles by keywords' and lists the available filters (country, language, source, date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_geolocation and search_by_top_headlines by emphasizing the keyword-based search mechanism, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 its siblings (search_by_geolocation, search_by_top_headlines, search_by_topic_headlines). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional usage scenarios mentioned.

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