search_historical_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context like the $0.01/query cost and mentions full-text search and advanced filters. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'Search' implies this). The cost disclosure is a positive, but there is no explicit side-effect or response-level detail.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the pricing and key features without any filler or redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a moderately complex search tool.

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 schema provides strong parameter coverage, but the description itself lacks high-level context such as what the response contains (e.g., article list with snippets) and how the pagination parameters relate to typical usage. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should hint at the return structure, but it does not. It adequately conveys the core function but leaves some gaps for a fully self-contained description.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'advanced filters' and 'full-text search' adds only general context and does not provide meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already explain. It neither clarifies how to combine filters nor details any particular parameter syntax beyond 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Search full historical news archive.' It further specifies the scope with 'years of crypto news,' which distinguishes it from real-time or breaking news tools among siblings. The function is unambiguous and properly scoped to historical archive search.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: for searching historical news archives, not for current news. The phrase 'full historical news archive' and 'years of crypto news' set a clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for real-time news or provide exclusions, so it lacks full 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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