News Archive

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the access restriction ('paid plans only') and hints at pagination via the 'page' arg, but it does not disclose return format, rate limits, or sorting behavior. It provides some value beyond annotations but with clear gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by a compact args list and two illustrative examples. It is efficient, though the args list partly duplicates schema information, preventing a perfect score.

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?

This is a complex 20-parameter tool with no output schema. The description provides examples and key parameters but does not describe the response structure, pagination navigation details, or error behavior. The rich schema and annotations help, but the description alone leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 adds practical examples (e.g., q='tesla', from_date='2025-01-01', to_date='2025-01-31') and highlights key parameters like q, from_date, to_date, size, and page, making parameter usage more concrete.

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 explicitly states 'Search historical news articles (paid plans only)' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'latest', 'crypto', 'market', and 'sources' by focusing on the 'archive' and 'historical' aspect.

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 provides clear context: it is 'useful for research and historical analysis' and notes 'paid plans only'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage-guideline clarity.

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