search_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool returns JSON with hot searches and optional RSS results, and describes search modes and filtering. It does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or result ordering behavior beyond the sort_by parameter, so coverage is adequate but not rich.

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-organized: a purpose statement, a cross-tool suggestion, a parameter reference, return description, and examples. Every section adds value, and the structure makes the long parameter list scannable.

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 complex with 10 parameters, but the description covers parameters, defaults, modes, and examples, while an output schema exists for return values. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus closely related sibling tools.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates with a detailed Args block explaining every parameter, including search_mode variants, threshold semantics, date_range format, and default values. This goes well beyond the schema and gives agents actionable parameter guidance.

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 identifies this as a unified search interface that searches both hot lists and RSS, with multiple search modes. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_rss and get_latest_news, though it does not explicitly name them or contrast itself against them.

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 a concrete usage suggestion to call resolve_date_range for natural language dates, which gives useful cross-tool guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as search_rss or get_trending_topics.

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