news_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results come from a cache and that calls cost no API budget, which is real behavioral value. It omits what the response looks like, freshness of the cache, and behavior on empty results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and closing with the cost caveat that matters most for tool selection. The middle sentence restates optional parameters already covered by the schema, which is mild waste but not enough to undermine the tightness.

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?

This is a simple read-only search with no output schema and fully documented parameters, so little is required beyond purpose and cost behavior, both of which are present. Return shape and cache freshness are the only meaningful 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the query field's searchable surfaces and the limit bounds. The description only repeats that source and limit are optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Search cached football headlines by query") and scopes it to cached data, which implicitly distinguishes it from the live-fetch sibling latest_news. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation must be inferred rather than read.

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?

"Does not spend the API-Football budget" hints at when to prefer this over budget-consuming tools, which is useful routing signal. However, it never states when to use latest_news versus news_search, nor any prerequisite or exclusion, leaving usage to inference.

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