Google News Search

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely useful behavior: RSS-first vs rendered fallback, the Camoufox browser path, rate-limit exposure, and the blocked-result recovery path. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Compact and front-loaded on the core operation, with the engine list and rate-limit note each earning their place. The mixed Indonesian/English phrasing and sentence fragments ('fallback tab News renderan bila RSS gagal') reduce immediate parseability for a general agent.

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 values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is documentation of the five non-engine parameters, which is a notable gap given 0% schema coverage.

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% across 6 params. The description meaningfully documents the 'engine' values (auto | http (RSS only) | proxy | browser), which the schema does not enumerate, but leaves query, gl, hl, num, and ceid completely unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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+resource (scrape Google News) and even describes the internal two-strategy mechanism (RSS first, rendered News tab fallback). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling google_news_homepage, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Adds real operational guidance: engine modes, and a warning that Google rate-limits and that one should wait or switch to an RSS-based tool when blocked. However, it never names the specific alternative sibling (e.g. google_news_homepage) nor states when this tool is preferable to google_web_search or google_search.

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