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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the ten possible result kinds, the extra fields attached to funding_round results (including that round_type may be null and round_label is a derived stage, not the official name), the editorial_format values on editorial items, and that unknown arguments are rejected. It omits ordering, default limit behavior, and pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the scope statement and the result-kind enumeration before the argument notes. The funding_round field list is verbose yet earns its place because there is no output schema to document return shapes elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by naming result kinds and their distinguishing fields. For a multi-domain search tool the remaining gaps — result ordering, default limit, and how the 'signals' format relates to get_signals_report in practice — are minor.

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 five parameters and the baseline is 3. The description restates q's requirement and minimum length and adds real meaning for editorial_format ('signals' = the monthly funding report, scoped to publication items), but says nothing about kinds or limit beyond what the schema declares.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: full-text search across named content domains (news, newsletter issues, podcasts, entity pages, funding rounds, products), and it enumerates the exact result kinds returned. It stops short of differentiating itself from the similarly-named siblings search_organizations, search_people, search_products and search_podcast_knowledge, so an agent must still infer which search entry point to pick.

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?

It gives one concrete usage constraint — q is required with a minimum of 2 characters and there is no plain-list mode — which usefully rules out an empty-query browsing pattern. It also points to get_signals_report for the 'signals' format. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the many sibling search_* tools, nor any exclusion conditions.

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