google_serp_news: GET /

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (title, snippet, publisher, etc.) and the concept of token-based navigation. It does not mention read-only nature, but that is implied by 'get'. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining mutual exclusivity of tokens.

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 a single, well-organized paragraph: first sentence states purpose, second explains inputs/returns, third lists use cases. No redundant or irrelevant phrases. 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 tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: input types, return fields, token relationships, and use cases. It could mention pagination or error handling, but it is sufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping tokens, explaining their mutual exclusivity (e.g., 'q' not allowed with tokens), and detailing the sort option with storyToken. This goes beyond the individual parameter 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 'Retrieves Google News results' and lists distinct input methods (query, tokens). It differentiates from sibling tools like general web search by focusing on news and specifying token-based navigation for topics and publishers.

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 explicit use cases: 'news monitoring, brand/PR tracking, topical aggregators, publisher-specific feeds, and drilling into full story coverage.' While it does not directly mention when not to use it, the sibling context (e.g., general search tools) implies the distinction.

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