search_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: results are newest-first, automatic pagination until limit or archive exhausted, and each result includes title, summary, date, language, category, and URL. No destructive or rate-limiting details are needed, as it's a read-only search tool. The description is transparent and accurate.

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 two short paragraphs, no fluff. First paragraph explains purpose and result fields, second explains pagination. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 output schema and full schema documentation, the description is nearly complete. It covers search scope, ordering, result fields, pagination, and cross-reference to get_article. One minor gap: it doesn't specify whether the search includes article bodies or just titles, but 'full-text search' implies body content. Otherwise, comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some extra context: for 'query' it provides examples, for 'limit' it explains that larger values dig deeper into history. However, most parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what is already in the schema.

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 performs full-text search across the SIP news archive, with a specific verb ('search'), resource ('news archive'), and scope ('back to ~2012'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like browse_latest_news (browsing without search) and get_article (retrieving full text).

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 general guidance (results newest-first, pagination behavior) and cross-references get_article for full text, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browse_latest_news or semantic_search. No 'when not to use' or direct comparison with siblings is given.

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