Google News Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value: it discloses the unblocked RSS path, the fallback to a rendered News tab, and that Camoufox is used for browser mode. It says nothing about rate limits, result caps, pagination, or failure modes beyond the one fallback, leaving gaps for a scraping tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core action, but the second block is a raw parameter-value enumeration that arguably belongs in the schema, and the awkward line breaks plus code-switching reduce clarity per word.

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. However, for a 6-parameter scraper with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers only the engine parameter and gives no guidance on the geographic/language controls or on choosing this tool over sibling search tools.

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 parameters. The description partially compensates by defining the engine values (auto | http | proxy | browser) in a way the bare string schema does not, but it omits any meaning for query, gl, hl, ceid, and num, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 opening verb+resource ('Scrape Google News') is specific and lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like google_news_homepage or google_web_search. The mixed Indonesian/English phrasing ('RSS dulu', 'renderan bila RSS gagal') slightly muddies an otherwise clear statement of what the tool does.

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 describes an internal retrieval strategy (RSS first, News-tab fallback) and lists engine modes, which implicitly guides how to invoke it. It never states when to prefer this tool over google_news_homepage, google_web_search, or any other sibling, so usage selection is left to inference.

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