search_today

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does well by disclosing matching against title/summary, the scoring formula (word match count × item score), and that it returns top results. This goes beyond a simple statement and gives useful insight into how results are ranked.

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 action, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 only 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and intent. It notes the matching scope and scoring, which is enough for an agent to select and call it, though it does not describe the exact return structure.

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%, with both parameters (query and limit) already described. The description adds the meaning of query as keyword query and the concept of 'top results' but does not significantly expand on the schema's parameter descriptions, so baseline 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 specifies a clear action ('Search') on a specific resource ('today's cached news') with a scoping method ('by keyword query'). It also details matching and scoring behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_trending_news or check_cache.

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 implies usage for keyword-based searches on cached news, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_trending_news or get_top_picks. The presence of search semantics provides context, but no direct alternative differentiation or exclusion criteria are given.

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