News Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (list of fields with types) and pagination mechanism, which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. This is sufficient transparency.

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 unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential output and pagination details. It is well-structured and 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and their types (e.g., publish_at in RFC3339) and explaining pagination cursors. This is comprehensive for a search tool. Minor missing details like error handling could be added, but not required for basic usage.

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 input schema covers both parameters (keyword and limit) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add new information about the parameters; it only describes the output. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides necessary semantics.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search news articles by keyword.' It specifies the verb (Search), resource (news articles), and the primary input (keyword). The returned fields are listed, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions pagination details ('Paginate with score+publish_at_timestamp+id cursors'), which is helpful for iterating results, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., a 'news' sibling) or any prerequisites. The context is implied but could be improved.

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