deep_search_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool fetches full article content and returns consolidated results, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as rate limits, freshness of results, failure modes, or how content is sourced, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise two-sentence statement that front-loads the action and key differentiators. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler text.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but leaves room for detail. It explains the core behavior but does not specify the return format of the 'consolidated results', the time window for 'recent', or any edge-case behavior, making it only partially complete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's output.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond mentioning 'recent news' and 'full article content', which indirectly map to 'query' and 'max_content_per_page'. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a verb ('searches') and a resource ('news articles'), and further details that it fetches full article content and returns consolidated results. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like google_search and deep_search by focusing on 'recent news' and 'current events', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Optimized for news and current events' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is preferred over generic search tools for news queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of the full 'when/when-not' guidance.

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