news_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses data provenance and freshness (GDELT, last 7 days, refreshed every 15 minutes), the returned fields (title, url, source, published_at), per-call cost ($0.0065 USDC) and p99 latency (2000ms). It stops short of auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and data scope before branching into alternatives; every clause carries information. The heavy nested parentheses ('(built from the GDELT Project, thousands of outlets, last 7 days, updated every 15 minutes)') make it denser than necessary, costing it a point.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, the index bounds, the freshness guarantee, category semantics, returned fields, cost, and where to go for adjacent needs. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates query/limit/category and adds little beyond the schema — the max-30 limit and the 'tech puts Hacker News first, others narrow GDELT' behavior are already documented in the property descriptions, so this is largely duplication rather than added semantic meaning.

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 (recent news articles) and immediately scopes it: keyword search over a defined index (GDELT ~100k English articles/day, last 7 days, updated every 15 min) plus Hacker News. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming crypto-news, discussion-search, and web-read-batch, so an agent can place it without opening another schema.

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 an affirmative use case ('current events and topic monitoring') and then routes three adjacent cases away with named alternatives: crypto news -> crypto-news, opinion/discussion -> discussion-search, full article text -> pass URLs to web-read-batch. When/when-not and alternatives are all explicit.

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