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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description goes further by declaring the full set of result kinds, the extra fields carried by funding_round results, and a strict-validation behavior ('unknown arguments are rejected'), which is actionable context the annotations do not provide.

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 dense paragraph with purpose front-loaded and result kinds and arguments following in a logical order. It is information-rich but every clause earns its place; no filler sentences.

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 usefully compensates by listing result kinds and the funding_round result shape, and it flags the mandatory-query constraint. Only the sibling-routing guidance and any pagination behavior are missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the q/query requirement and minimum length that the schema already documents and adds no syntax, format or default details beyond it; the funding_round field listing describes output, not inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and enumerates the resource breadth — news, newsletter issues, podcasts, entity pages, funding rounds, products. An agent immediately grasps that this is the broad content search, distinguishing it in scope from narrower siblings like search_people or search_products. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Implies usage through the enumeration of covered kinds and the note that it has no plain-list mode, which tells the agent a query is mandatory. However it never says when to prefer this over the specialized search_people/search_organizations/search_products siblings, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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