search_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the search targets text content and sets a result limit (default 10, max 100), but it does not describe the return format, sorting, or any other runtime behavior. The word 'search' implies a read-only action, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence provides useful information, and the parameter documentation is structured without redundancy with the schema, aside from repeating the parameter names which is necessary given zero schema descriptions.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the invocation essentials: what it searches and how to set the parameters. However, absent an output schema and annotations, it does not indicate what the result objects look like or how this search differs from search_news_by_coin/search_news_advanced. An agent could invoke it correctly but would be uncertain about the return shape and edge cases.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It gives concrete examples for keyword ("bitcoin", "SEC", "ETF") and adds a max constraint (100) not present in the schema, which only lists a default of 10. This is exactly the addition needed beyond the structured schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('crypto news'), and the exact scope ('by keyword in text content'). This strongly differentiates it from siblings like search_news_by_coin (which searches by coin) and get_latest_news (which returns recent articles). No ambiguity remains about the core function.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_news_advanced or search_news_by_coin. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended contexts. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and siblings.

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