search_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Fetch search results') but does not describe any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 (simple search with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps in providing a full context for effective use.

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 description does not add any meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description does not explain the 'query' parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. Since there is only one parameter and the schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score due to the minimal parameter count.

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 the action ('Fetch search results') and the resource ('from Google News via Serper'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_weather' or 'read_notes', though the domain difference is implied by the name and description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context it should be applied. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage entirely implicit based on the tool name and general purpose.

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