news_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses a 15-minute cache and the limit range (1-50), which the schema does not. However it says nothing about the geo parameter's behavior, error cases, or whether results are scoped or sampled, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a network-backed tool.

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?

Compact, front-loads the output-focused purpose, and appends operational facts (cache, limit) without padding. Slight awkwardness in the enumerated list, but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still names the outputs, adds caching and limit bounds, and gives a use-case hint. Only the geo parameter's meaning and scope remain unaddressed.

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% across 3 parameters, so the schema contributes nothing. The description rescues 'limit' by defining it as headlines returned with a 1-50 range (bounds absent from the schema), but 'topic' and 'geo' receive no semantic elaboration beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('who is covering a topic in Google News') and enumerates the three outputs returned: headlines, a publisher frequency table, and a recency histogram. The Google News source is named, which separates it from wiki_attention and interest_over_time among siblings.

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 parenthetical '(mention / pitch targets)' hints at a PR/media-outreach use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over siblings like trending_now or wiki_attention, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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