news_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (source name, publish date, stable ids) and a capability prerequisite ('Requires a Brave-capable provider'), but says nothing about rate limits, freshness semantics, or pagination/result caps.

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 tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the provider requirement could be framed more precisely.

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 4-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing return fields and the provider dependency. However, it leaves all four input parameters undocumented, which is a meaningful omission for correct invocation.

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% for 4 parameters (count, country, freshness, search_term), and the description adds no meaning for any of them — no format for freshness, no explanation of country scoping, no count semantics. This is a clear gap the description should have compensated for.

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 news) and scopes it to 'recent news, headlines, or events from the past few days,' which implicitly separates it from the generic web_search sibling. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Use this when the user asks about recent news...' gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or pointing to web_search/image_search as the alternative for non-news queries.

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