search_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search across the news archive' but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only (assumed but not stated), pagination, rate limits, authorization requirements, or the meaning of 'urgency score'. The description is incomplete for safe agent decision-making.

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: one opening sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasteful words. However, the parameter list could be slightly more compact (e.g., removing redundant 'Args:' label) but overall well-structured.

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?

The description provides adequate input parameter semantics but lacks output schema and return value information. With 5 parameters and no output schema, the agent is left uncertain about response format, error handling, or pagination. The 'tier-limited' hint for days is vague. Given the complexity, the description partially satisfies completeness but has notable gaps.

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%, forcing the description to explain all parameters. The description adds meaningful context: 'query: search terms (matched against title + content)', 'min_score: minimum urgency score (0-10)', 'language: 'ru', 'en', etc. Empty = all', 'days: history window (tier-limited)', 'limit: max results (capped at 50)'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds value beyond raw names and types.

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 'Full-text keyword search across the news archive', specifying a specific verb ('search') and resource ('news archive'). This distinctly differentiates from siblings like coverage_stats, get_breaking, get_feed, and list_sources, which serve different purposes (stats, breaking news, feed, sources).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for full-text search, but lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context. The sibling tools hint at different functionality, but the description itself offers no comparative or conditional advice.

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