search_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'headlines, sentiment, categories, and sources', which adds some output context, but fails to cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether results are paginated. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief elaboration and a structured 'Args' section. There's minimal waste, though the separation of the 'Args' block slightly disrupts flow. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient without being overly terse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers input semantics well but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address when to use this tool over siblings and operational constraints.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'query' as a 'Search keyword or phrase' with examples ('ETF', 'SEC', 'Uniswap'), and clarifies 'limit' as 'Number of results to return' with a range (1-5) and default (5). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail query syntax or limit enforcement.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search curated crypto news by keyword' specifies the verb (search), resource (crypto news), and scope (curated). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_latest_news' by emphasizing keyword-based searching rather than recency-based retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_enriched_news' or 'get_news_recap', leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'search_news' over 'get_latest_news' (for recency) or 'get_enriched_news' (for enhanced data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is keyword-based searching, but this is insufficient for clear usage decisions among the six sibling tools.

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