real_time_news_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Flat' and 'simple,' hinting at a lightweight, non-hierarchical response, but does not disclose return fields, pagination, rate limits, or how results are ordered. The 'search' operation is tautological ('Search') and adds no behavioral transparency.

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 mostly compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Search' after the bullet is redundant, but overall the structure is clear, with an operations section and a usage tip, without excessive verbosity.

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 tool is simple with one operation, and the description covers the core purpose and when to use it. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what fields are returned, how many results, or any query formatting details. It is minimally viable but has gaps.

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?

While the input schema has 100% coverage for its top-level properties (operation and args), it leaves args as an open object and defers to the tool description. The description adds the required 'query' parameter for the search operation, which is essential and not present in the schema. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's generic args definition.

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 the tool performs a 'Flat news article search across many outlets for a keyword query.' It specifies the action (search), resource (news articles), and scope (across many outlets). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool realtime_news_data by noting the flat structure versus Google News topics/headlines.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use for a simple article keyword search. For Google News structure (topics, headlines) use realtime_news_data.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to choose the alternative sibling tool.

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