searxng_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Returns recent news' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and parameter nuances. With no output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it does mention titles, URLs, and summaries.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (query, engines, language, pageno). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 for news articles using SearXNG' specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('news articles'), and 'Returns recent news with titles, URLs, and summaries' adds output details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'searxng_images' and 'searxng_search' by focusing on news, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'news articles' but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., breaking news, topic monitoring) or contrast with siblings like 'searxng_search' for general web searches. Usage is implied by the context but not explicitly stated.

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