Search news articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the bar is lowered, and the description still adds real behavioral context: token consumption per call, higher cost for archive queries beyond 31 days, and the default compact vs raw response shape. It does not describe pagination limits or rate limits, but the added cost/return-shape disclosure is substantive.

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?

Four tight sentences: scope first, then filtering, then the entity-resolution rule, then cost and return-format caveats. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 35-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, key filtering dimensions, the resolution workflow for URI parameters, cost implications and return format. It omits guidance on the advanced_query override interaction with simple filters and on pagination depth, but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including that source_uris/concept_uris come from newsapi_suggest. The description's URI-resolution advice largely repeats what the schema already says, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 (search) and resource (news articles) with concrete scope: ~150k sources, filterable by keywords, concepts, categories, sources, locations, language and date. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from newsapi_suggest, which it names as the prerequisite for entity resolution.

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?

Gives actionable routing guidance: prefer concept_uris over keywords for entities and resolve them first with newsapi_suggest. Adds a cost-aware usage rule (each call consumes tokens; queries older than 31 days cost more). It does not, however, say when to use this vs newsapi_search_events, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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