xmlstock_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently discloses the cost ('ПЛАТНО за запрос'), the return structure (position, url, title, source, date, snippet), and the truncated flag's meaning. This goes beyond basic purpose and helps the agent anticipate behavior. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 efficient: two main clauses that cover purpose, cost, return format, and a key edge case. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 compensates for the lack of an output schema by explicitly listing the returned fields and the meaning of the truncated flag. This covers the core behavioral contract. Some aspects like authentication are not mentioned, but the tool context (sibling auth tools) and schema descriptions fill the gaps. Overall it is sufficiently complete for a search tool with a well-defined schema.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for 5 of 7 parameters (depth, region, safeSearch, searchDomain, account), giving schema coverage of 71%. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already states, mainly reiterating the cost per request. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Поиск по новостям Google через XMLStock' (Search Google news via XMLStock), naming a specific verb and resource. The 'новости' (news) qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmlstock_serp, xmlstock_images, and xmlstock_video.

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 establishes clear context for when to use the tool: for Google news searches. It also notes that queries are paid, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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