Google News22 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'most popular' (ranking behavior) but omits access tier restrictions, pagination behavior (despite the page parameter), date filtering logic, rate limits, or what happens when no results exist. The schema reveals access levels that the description should highlight.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, though 'This endpoint lets you find' is slightly passive compared to direct action verbs like 'Finds' or 'Retrieves'. The parenthetical examples are appropriately concise.

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 5 parameters (2 optional), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides minimum viable context for basic invocation but leaves gaps. It does not explain the optional date/page parameters' behavior, the access tier limitations visible in the schema, or the return format (e.g., whether it returns full articles or just headlines).

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the three required parameters (country, language, topic) aligning with the schema, but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema for the optional date and page parameters (which have empty example values in the schema). It does not explain the ISO code formats or pagination syntax.

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 finds 'the most popular news article' (specific verb+resource) filtered by country, language, and topic. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'topic' (contrasting with geolocation, keyword, and top_headlines variants), though the singular 'article' slightly mismatches the plural 'headlines' in the tool name.

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 topic examples ('like sports or entertainment') which imply usage, but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_by_keyword or search_by_top_headlines. It fails to mention the access level restrictions (Basic/Pro/Ultra/Mega) detailed in the topic parameter schema, which is critical for usage decisions.

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