get_search_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it performs a search operation (implying read-only, non-destructive behavior), supports advanced operators with examples, specifies a result limit ('up to 100 articles'), and outlines the return structure. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers core functionality well.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of advanced operators for quick reference, and then structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, advanced operators) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value details), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage with operators, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits like result limits, leaving the output schema to specify the exact return structure. No critical gaps are evident for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema: it explains that 'query' supports advanced operators with detailed examples, clarifies that 'language' and 'country' are optional with defaults from config, and provides context on valid values (e.g., time range options like '1h', '24h'). This goes well beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 specific action ('Search Google News and get RSS feed for results'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_top_headlines (which likely returns headlines without search) or get_category_feed (which filters by category rather than search query). It precisely identifies both the verb (search and get) and resource (Google News RSS feed).

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 context through the mention of 'advanced search operators' and the specific return format, suggesting this tool is for customized news searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_top_headlines or get_category_feed, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites for use.

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