Google News Scraper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: it starts one run of the Apify Actor through mcp.apify.com using your own APIFY_TOKEN and your Apify account, and returns run/dataset IDs for paging. The repeated "Read-only" claim is consistent with annotations. It stops short of disclosing run cost or concurrency behavior, so not a 5.

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-loaded and organized into labeled sections (When to use, Returns, Behavior, Docs), which makes scanning easy. There is minor redundancy and a typo ("full, titles") from the opening list being echoed by the fields enumeration, but no sentence is wasted overall.

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?

A 10-parameter tool with no output schema is well served by the explicit "Returns" paragraph describing one-row-per-result JSON plus run/dataset IDs for paging. The main gap is that all parameters are optional and the description never states what a zero-argument call does or which of the three query inputs is required in practice.

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 every parameter (topics, keywords, timeframe, decodeUrls, maxArticles, proxyConfiguration, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance such as which of topics/keywords/topicUrls to prefer or what happens when all are left empty. 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Scrape Google News") and then enumerates exactly what fields come back (titles, sources, dates, URLs, images). An agent can tell this apart from the stock/market/archive siblings without opening the schema.

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?

"When to use: Use when you need recent Google News articles for a query" gives a clear positive trigger tied to the returned fields. There are no exclusions or alternatives named, but no sibling here overlaps the news-scraping domain, so the omission is low-risk.

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