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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the matching semantics (every keyword must appear in title or slug), the ordering (newest first), and the returned fields. It omits limits on result volume beyond the schema's constraint and any rate/access caveats, which are minor for a read-only search.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and how matching works, then closing with usage guidance. No filler.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return shape (titles, canonical URLs) and ordering. The only gap is guidance on the limit parameter, which is not needed for correct invocation but would round out the picture.

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 50% – query is documented in the schema, limit is not. The description adds real meaning for query by defining the AND-matching rule, but says nothing about limit's role (default 10, max 25), leaving that parameter's behavior to the schema alone.

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 (search) and resource (English blog corpus) and scopes the return (titles and canonical URLs, newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_article, which fetches a single article rather than performing a keyword search.

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?

"Use to find Shotlee coverage of a drug, peptide, side effect or topic" gives clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name get_article as the alternative for retrieving a known article, so the when-not side 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.