search_company_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it uses Google News RSS (no key), and is especially useful for small companies. It does not mention rate limits or result limitations, but given annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a main paragraph and an important note. It uses bold for emphasis and is concise—every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides usage guidance and parameter semantics. No wasted words.

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 (search with optional parameters) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and parameter semantics. The output schema handles return value details, so the description does not need to explain them.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself contains descriptions for parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining the critical 'country' parameter and how 'company_domain' can infer it. The 'language' parameter is said to be inferred from country, and 'response_format' is straightforward. The description compensates for the lack of schema descriptions for the most important parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search regional/local news for a company via Google News RSS (no key).' It also explains its specific value for small companies not covered by GLEIF/SEC, differentiating it from sibling tools that focus on domain, email, or address checks.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when: verifying a small/local company beyond registries.' It also provides crucial prerequisite guidance: determine the company's actual country first and pass it as 'country' or infer it via 'company_domain'. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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