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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: AND-matching semantics ('Every word must appear in the headline or summary'), the 7-day recency window, a hard cap of 5 results, and newest-first ordering. None of that is derivable from the 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then matching semantics, then result behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 discloses result count and ordering, and the matching rules, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It does not describe returned fields or what an empty result looks like, a minor gap for a search tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value for the query parameter by explaining that all words must match the headline or summary rather than being fuzzy/OR semantics. It says nothing extra about topic or jurisdiction beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (keyword search) and resource (Canadian government news releases) with a precise scope constraint (last 7 days). The 'search' framing inherently distinguishes it from the sibling latest_releases, though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('keyword search ... last 7 days') but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when latest_releases would be the better choice. The only routing hint lives in the schema for the topic parameter, not in the description.

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