search_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, pagination, or result ordering), but does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single, compact sentence conveys the core functionality without extraneous wording. It is well-structured 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?

The tool is straightforward, and the existence of an output schema means return-value details need not be in the description. The description covers the essential purpose and scope, though it omits any mention of edge cases or result handling.

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 covers 4 parameters but the description explains none of them individually. It only hints that start_date and cutoff_date relate to 'publication dates'. This is minimal compensation for zero schema coverage, leaving query and top_k semantics unexplained.

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 ('Search'), the target ('news AND company announcements'), the constraint ('within publication dates'), and a distinctive feature ('including adverse evidence'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_research_reports and read_evidence.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_research_reports or read_evidence. The description implies it is for news/announcements but does not state scenarios or contrast with other search tools.

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