Google News

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the credit cost (1 credit per call) and the fact that results are paginated. It does not explain result freshness, ranking behavior, or limits, but the cost disclosure is a meaningful addition for an agent budgeting calls.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the cost note. Minor waste in 'Google News.' as a standalone opener, which merely restates the title before the actual verb sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the burden of describing the 'structured news results' falls on the description, which only asserts they are structured and paginated without saying what fields come back. Given nine parameters with full schema docs and helpful annotations, the definition is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the sibling choice and the return shape.

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 all nine parameters (query, gl, hl, cr, lr, num, page, fields, google_domain) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the pagination capability that page/num already describe, adding no syntax or semantics of its own. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Search Google News' and 'retrieve structured news results with pagination'. This clearly separates it from non-news siblings like google_maps or google_shopping. However, it never distinguishes itself from google_search, google_search_light, or google_search_ai, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be used for news queries because the resource is Google News. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer google_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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