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

With readOnlyHint=true already provided in annotations, the description adds valuable context: the archive spans back to 2003 with 2.6 million articles across three editions, and it returns metadata only. It also explains exact phrase behavior with a concrete example, contributing behavioral insight beyond the schema and annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, and each sentence earns its place. It provides useful context about archive coverage, searching behavior, and alternative tools without verbose or redundant text.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, and the description covers the essential use case, return type, collection scope, language editions, phrase searching, and related tools. Given the rich schema and output schema, the description sufficiently contextualizes the tool for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description doesn't need to explain every parameter. It adds value by illustrating the exact-phrase use case with a real-world example and reinforcing the language edition independence. The baseline is high because the schema is thorough; the description neatly complements it.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Trend News Agency archive by keyword and returns matching headlines with ranking, date, section, byline, and URL. It explicitly differentiates itself by noting it returns metadata only, which separates it from siblings like trendaz_research and trendaz_article_get.

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 gives explicit guidance: use trendaz_research for full reported text and trendaz_article_get for a single article. It also implies when the search tool is appropriate (keyword-based headline retrieval) versus alternatives, making the use case clear.

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