search_news_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'COSTS CREDITS,' which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens upon execution (e.g., data returned). The cost note is helpful but incomplete.

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 concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for usage and cost. Every sentence adds value, and the important note about credits is front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or how to effectively combine the parameters. The use case is provided but not enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 50% (page and per_page lack descriptions). The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or how they work together. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the covered parameters, leaving a gap for users.

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 it searches news articles about companies in Apollo's database. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_contacts or search_activities, which search different entities. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., 'recent news' is vague).

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 gives a use case ('finding recent news about target companies for personalized outreach') but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor any conditions where it should not be used. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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