realtime_news_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the supported operations and required params, but does not describe the response format, pagination, error handling, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'Google News data' but not explicitly stated. This is adequate for operation selection but lacks depth for fully understanding tool behavior.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence overview, a bullet list of seven operations with their required params, and a concise 'When to use' section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the core capability. It is appropriately sized for a multi-operation tool.

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 has 7 operations, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly covers operation selection and parameter requirements, but it does not describe the return value structure or expected output for any operation (e.g., what 'full_story_coverage' returns). Given that the output schema is absent, this is a notable gap that prevents an agent from knowing how to interpret results.

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?

The input schema only defines 'operation' and a generic 'args' object, so the description is the primary source for per-operation parameters. It lists the required parameter names for every operation (query, topic, story, country), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it omits types, optional parameters, and format details, so it does not fully compensate for the schema's generic 'args' placeholder.

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 opens with 'Google News data: search news, top and topic headlines, by-section and local headlines, and full-story coverage,' which clearly specifies the verb+resource. It names the sibling alternative tools (real_time_news_search, realtime_web_search) and differentiates this tool as the structured Google News accessor. The operation list further clarifies distinct endpoints.

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?

An explicit 'When to use' section states: 'Use for structured Google News (headlines, topics, coverage). For a flat news search across outlets use real_time_news_search; for general web results use realtime_web_search.' This provides direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Each operation also lists its required parameters, giving clear invocation conditions.

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