search_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the return shape (title, body, url, date, source) and parameter defaults and constraints. It says nothing about rate limits, result freshness/staleness, pagination, or that this is strictly a read-only network call — reasonable assumptions for a search tool, but not stated.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact Args/Returns block; every line adds information. The docstring formatting ("Args:", indentation) is slightly noisy for an agent prompt but nothing is redundant.

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?

All five parameters are fully characterized and the return fields are enumerated, which is more than most search tools offer. The Returns section is partly redundant with the existing output schema, and the absence of any note on result limits beyond max_results or on tool-selection versus siblings leaves a small gap.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains query is required, region is a region code with default 'us-en', max_results range 1-100, safesearch allowed values 'on'/'moderate'/'off', and timelimit values 'd'/'w'/'m'. These enum-like acceptable values are absent from the schema and are essential to correct invocation.

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 for news articles" — clearly distinguishable from search_web, search_books, search_images and search_videos by resource. It does not, however, say how it relates to search_everything or when news specifically is the right corpus, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative tool such as search_web or search_everything, even though six similar search siblings exist. The agent must infer selection purely from the word "news".

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