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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals output behavior that schema cannot: returns editorial summaries that are safe to quote and canonical /event/{slug} URLs. This is substantive, though it omits details like auth, rate limits, or pagination.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, the mode distinction follows immediately, and the output note earns its place by telling the agent what results are safe to quote.

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-oriented tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation modes and return format. It leaves minor gaps around ordering behavior and filter combinations, but an agent has enough to call it correctly for the two primary use cases.

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 60%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for query ('semantic search') and the no-query default ('heat-ranked feed'). However, it does not add value for limit, order=recent, region, or category beyond what the schema already names or minimally describes, leaving those parameter interactions implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Search or list AI news events') and immediately clarifies two distinct modes: semantic search with query versus the heat-ranked feed without it. This clearly distinguishes the tool from news-related siblings like daily_digest and related_stories.

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?

It gives explicit internal guidance: 'Pass query for semantic search, or omit it for the heat-ranked feed.' This is clear context for how to choose between the tool's own modes, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use search_news.

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