News Search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return format and pagination cursor details, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or what happens when no results are found. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, two sentences with no fluff, and front-loads the core purpose. The pagination details are placed at the end, which is fine. However, it could be even more compact by dropping the field list since that is discoverable from the output, but it is still efficient.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides the return fields and pagination mechanics, which is essential for correct invocation. It also has annotations covering safety. It might mention result count limits or error behavior, but these are minor. Overall, the key information is present, so 4 is appropriate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for each (keyword, limit, _jq), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing pagination cursors (score+publish_at_timestamp+id) that are not in the schema, helping agents understand how to paginate. It also mentions the default limit (20) indirectly, though the schema already states it. This exceeds the baseline, so 4 is justified.

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 clearly states it searches news articles by keyword and specifies the return fields in a list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'news' or 'news_detail', which likely have distinct scopes. The title 'News Search' aligns with the description, but the description could be more specific about what makes this search unique compared to other news-related tools.

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 implies usage for keyword-based search but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'news' or 'news_detail'. It lacks exclusions or specific conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over siblings. The presence of pagination details suggests it is for listing many results, but this is not explicitly stated as a usage guideline.

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