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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: a minimum query length of 2 characters, the absence of a plain-list mode, and that unknown arguments are rejected. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the added constraints are meaningful.

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: first the purpose, then the argument constraints. It is front-loaded, has zero waste, and every clause earns its place by specifying scope and key requirements.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations that cover safety and idempotence, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the required query, minimum length, no plain-list mode, and strict argument handling. A brief note on the return shape or default limit would make it fully complete, but those are minor given the schema and no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the 'q'/'query' alias and the 'kinds' and 'limit' fields. The description repeats the required/minimum aspects of 'q' but adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Full-text search') and enumerates the resource scope ('published news, newsletter issues, podcast episodes and public entity pages'), so the agent knows exactly what content is covered. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_organizations or search_people, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 by stating that the tool has no plain-list mode and that 'q' is required, which tells the agent it must provide a search term. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no comparison to sibling search tools, and no exclusions beyond the plain-list note.

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