google_news_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that requests are anonymous with fresh proxy profiles, no browser rendering, pagination slices a finite snapshot, and empty arrays for no-results/exhausted pages. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but for a search tool this is quite transparent.

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 ~90 words, front-loaded with purpose ('Search Google News with JSON') and includes essential behavioral details without waste. Each sentence adds information: method, pagination behavior, and output format. It is structured logically, though slightly dense.

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 the nested parameter structure and no output schema, the description explains the output behavior (empty arrays) and the finite snapshot nature. It doesn't list result fields, but that's acceptable without an output schema. It covers pagination, authentication (anonymous), and the legacy format, making it reasonably complete for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about page and limit by explaining that pages slice a finite snapshot, which clarifies pagination semantics. This goes beyond the schema's basic range/gist descriptions.

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 verb (Search) and resource (Google News) and specifies the output (returns current Google News articles). It adds technical detail about the method (anonymous HTTP, proxy, no rendering) that clarifies the tool's nature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'google_news', relying on the name for distinction, so it's not fully distinctive.

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 usage context about pagination ('Pages slice the finite current result snapshot') and empty results, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_news, bing_news, or duckduckgo_news. No explicit when-not or alternative selection guidance is given.

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