latest_news_search_by_keyword

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core search function without mentioning whether it is a read-only operation, any pagination behavior, return format, or potential limitations. The word 'search' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, and there is no disclosure of side effects or constraints.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Search for articles that contain a specific keyword in the title.' No filler, no repetition. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 simple search tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but it lacks essential context given the absence of annotations and output schema. There is no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., article list, metadata), no usage guidance, and no differentiation from sibling tools. Given the complexity of the parameter set and sibling ambiguity, this is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the semantic clarification that the keyword is matched in the title, which is useful. However, the schema descriptions are only example values (e.g., 'Example value: Microsoft'), providing no real explanation of what 'page' and 'page_size' do. The description does not compensate for this gap.

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 action ('Search for articles'), the resource ('articles'), and the precise scope ('contain a specific keyword in the title'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_articles_search_by_keywords, which likely search across full text, and latest_news, which may not have a keyword search. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is title-specific or suggest other tools for keyword searching in full content. Without exclusions or alternative recommendations, the agent lacks sufficient context to choose this tool over similar siblings.

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