web_search_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the freshness filter and language code, and notes the result shape matches web_search. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, safesearch semantics, or any rate limits/errors. The description adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the key filters are mentioned, and the result-shape reference to web_search is a useful pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the news vertical, freshness filter, language, and result shape. It doesn't mention pagination or safesearch, but those are in the schema with defaults. For a search tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions time_range and language, but not pageno or safesearch. The description adds meaning for two of five parameters, but the schema already provides titles and defaults for all. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('news articles'), and engine vertical ('SearXNG's news vertical'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling web_search by naming the news vertical and the freshness filter. An agent can tell this apart from web_search without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use this tool: when news articles are needed, and it references the sibling web_search for the result shape. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the shape reference, but the news-vertical framing gives clear context.

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