search-news

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the per-call cost, wallet requirement, independent index, clean JSON output, and the returned article fields. This is solid disclosure without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important operational detail (cost and wallet requirement) before explaining what the tool returns and when to use it. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler.

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?

The description is complete for a search tool of this complexity: it covers purpose, output shape, cost, freshness options, and the use case distinction from web search. The output schema and annotations carry the remaining details like parameter limits and idempotency 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 100%, so the parameter documentation is already comprehensive. The description adds some value by explaining the freshness values (pd/pw/pm/py) and that the tool returns ranked results, but it does not meaningfully enhance the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a live news search returning ranked recent articles with specific fields (title, URL, snippet, age, source, breaking flag). It also distinguishes itself from general web search by noting it uses an independent news index optimized for current-events queries where the web index lags.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: current-events queries where the web index lags, and notes the same freshness filter as web search. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name web.search as the alternative, but the positioning against the web index implies the usage boundary.

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