google_news

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. It only states the basic function and usage recommendation without covering result format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any other nuances. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the primary action and immediately following with clear usage guidance. There is zero redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 seven parameters, a required query, and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it does and when to prefer it. The schema covers all parameters, and the recency emphasis clarifies the key distinction from siblings. It could mention result ordering or limitations, but it remains complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 all seven parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific insights, keeping the score at the baseline of 3 per the calibration guidance.

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 it searches Google News for recent news articles, giving a specific verb and resource. The mention of 'recent' and 'what is happening with a topic' distinguishes it from general google_search and other sibling tools, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of google_search when recency matters or the user asks what is happening with a topic.' It names the alternative and gives concrete conditions, which exceeds minimal expectations and directly aids tool selection.

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