search_news

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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It accurately conveys a read-only search operation and the source scope, but it does not describe the result format, ordering, pagination, or potential rate limits. For a non-mutating search tool this is a moderate transparency gap.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words; the action, object, and provider list are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple schema and the fact that the description names the providers and result type, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could be improved by noting the merged/capped nature of results and the absence of an output schema, but these are not fatal gaps.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including num_results as 'per provider' and max_total_results as a cap on the merged result set. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('recent news headlines and articles'), and it enumerates the exact providers (Google News, Hacker News, Lobsters, Lemmy, Reddit). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from general web or social search.

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 gives an implicit usage context: use when the agent needs recent news from the listed providers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_web or search_google, nor state when not to use it, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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