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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context on top: archive start (early 2026), the 45-day teaser limitation, AND matching semantics, and ranking (newest first among equal matches). It still omits what a result actually contains and whether results are truncated.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; corpus scope, matching rule, and ordering are each delivered in a single clause, and the most important scoping fact (what is searchable) is front-loaded.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies corpus extent, language behavior, match semantics, and ordering — the essentials for calling it correctly. The residual gaps are return-shape hints and explicit routing away from the sibling latest_news.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it: 'all four languages' clarifies the lang enum's effect, the archive start date frames the days parameter, and the AND rule adds meaning the query schema's example does not convey. Only the undocumented limit parameter is left unaddressed.

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 and resource ('full-text search over the Base of AGI news archive') and bounds the corpus with concrete coverage details. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling latest_news, which is the tool an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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 rather than stated: 'All query words must match' tells the agent this is an AND-style keyword search, which is a usable selection cue. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no pointer to latest_news or daily_brief as the alternative for browsing rather than searching.

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