Search the news

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the cost model (~$0.01 engine cost per default call, margin-billed), that budgetUsd caps spend (default 2, max 10), that chargedUsd reports actual cost, and that write scope is required. This explains why a search carries readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, resolving potential confusion.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the freshness knob, then a prominently flagged cost/auth block. Efficient and well-ordered, though the mid-sentence cost clause is 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?

An output schema exists so return format need not be spelled out, and the description covers cost, scope, and the freshness parameter adequately. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented by the schema. The description restates within_days (window narrowing) and budgetUsd (default/max) plus adds chargedUsd context, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource — fresh, dated journalism on a query — and scopes the source precisely: a curated news index with press-release wires filtered out. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like web_search or current_pulse without opening their schemas.

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 scope note ('press-release wires filtered out') implies its niche versus other search tools, and 'Needs the write scope' flags a prerequisite. But it never explicitly names when to prefer this over web_search, current_pulse, or concept_search, so the agent must infer the choice.

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