news_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose scope and relevance ranking. It does not, however, mention return format, pagination, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence followed by illustrative examples. It is concise with no fluff, every word earning its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states scope, ranking, and examples. Lacking explicit parameter documentation and result structure details keeps it from a perfect score, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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. It provides helpful query examples, which partially illustrate the 'query' parameter, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or any query syntax beyond natural language phrases.

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 and resource: 'Full-text search over ALL stored news (ESPN, team sites, PFT, Yahoo) ranked by relevance.' This distinguishes it from more targeted sibling news tools like player_news and league_news by emphasizing the comprehensive scope.

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 conveys a clear context for use by specifying ALL news sources and giving tangible examples ('Gibbs hamstring', 'coaching change Arizona'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like player_news for player-specific queries.

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