foxnews_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the search is public and credential-free and that records can be article, video, or slideshow types. However, it does not describe response shape, pagination behavior, query syntax, rate limits, or any other operational traits, and the term 'Moxie' is unexplained.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the result-type note is compact and useful. 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?

For a simple, fully schema-covered search tool, the description covers the basics: what is searched, the credential-free nature, and the type filter. But with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves unanswered operational details such as response format, pagination, and how this search relates to the surrounding Fox News tools.

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 schema already documents all three parameters and the type enum. The description's 'use type to restrict the result kind' lightly reinforces the type parameter's purpose but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search Fox News public content' on a 'public credential-free Moxie search surface.' It is clearly a full-text search tool and mentions result kinds (article, video, slideshow). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent Fox News tools like foxnews_headlines, foxnews_news, or foxnews_sections, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this search tool versus the Fox News browse/retrieval siblings (headlines, news, sections, article). The only usage hint, 'use type to restrict the result kind,' addresses parameter selection rather than tool selection. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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