search_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the backend (SearXNG), the wrapper relationship to web_search(), and the return shape via the Returns section and example. It omits caveats like failure modes or rate limits, but the behavior of a read-oriented search tool is described well.

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 docstring is front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured Args/Returns/Example sections. The example is concrete but not bloated, and every line adds useful information.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description supplies purpose, backend, parameter semantics, returns, and an example. There is no obvious missing information an agent would need to call 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 0%, so the Args section must compensate. It does: query is defined as 'News topic or event,' time_range lists allowed values, and num_results and language get defaults and meanings. This fully adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Search recent news articles using SearXNG.' The second sentence, 'convenience wrapper around web_search() optimized for news,' immediately distinguishes it from the web_search sibling.

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?

It clearly implies use for news queries by calling itself optimized for news and a wrapper around web_search(). However, it does not explicitly say 'use web_search for non-news or general web queries,' so the when-not guidance is slightly implicit rather than fully explicit.

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