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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses a genuinely useful behavior: results come from editorial picks first and expand to all public items only when picks return nothing. That fallback semantics is not derivable from the schema or annotations, though result ordering/pagination after expansion is still unstated.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler: the scope constraint is front-loaded and the fallback behavior follows. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.

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 read-only, single-query search tool with full schema descriptions and complete annotations, the description covers scope and the result-tier behavior sufficiently. Missing only minor details such as how to page past the limit or how window interacts with the 'latest 7 days' framing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents q, lang, limit, window, and category, including enum values and defaults. The description only adds a hint about what kinds of entities the query string accepts (topic, company, model, product, or person), which is marginal value over the existing field description.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (e/acc's latest 7 days), plus the query domain (topic, company, model, product, person). That distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_*' retrieval tools, which appear to fetch predefined slices rather than run a query, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implicit guidance is present: use this to search by topic rather than to browse predefined editions like eacc_get_latest or eacc_get_daily. However, it never states when not to use it or names an alternative sibling, leaving the agent to infer the split from tool names alone.

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