XMLStock: news

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

Beyond the annotations, the description warns that every request is paid, enumerates the exact return shape, and explains the meaning of 'truncated: true'. These are operationally important behavioral details that annotations alone do not provide. 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?

The description is two short, information-dense sentences: the first establishes purpose, cost, and return fields; the second defines the truncation flag. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a paid news-search tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states cost, output format, and truncation behavior, while the schema documents most parameters. It does not explicitly state authentication prerequisites, but the account parameter's reference to '*_auth_status' and the sibling auth tools supply that context.

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 description itself adds no parameter-level explanation, but the input schema already covers 71% of parameters with meaningful descriptions (depth, region, safeSearch, searchDomain, account). The coverage gap for query and device is minor and largely inferable, so the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Поиск по новостям Google' / search Google News) and clearly identifies XMLStock as the execution channel. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmlstock_serp, xmlstock_images, and xmlstock_video by targeting the news vertical.

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 intended use is implied by 'news' — an agent can infer this tool is for Google News results — but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over xmlstock_serp or when it should not be used. The cost warning and return-format hints provide supporting context but not decision rules.

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