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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the schema: results are ranked 'Newest and strongest first'. It does not disclose the default 14-day window, result truncation, or empty-result behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the search scope and ranking behavior front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the title.

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 is simple, has no output schema to explain, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is minor: the default/limits of the time window and result count are left entirely to the schema.

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 67%: query and days are documented, while limit is undocumented in both schema and description. The description enriches query semantics by enumerating acceptable keyword types (model, repo, company, technique, topic), which adds value over the schema example, but it sheds no light on the days/limit scoping parameters.

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 (Find) and resource (AI capabilities across recent editions) and specifies the search axis (keyword: model, repo, company, technique, topic). It implicitly distinguishes itself from fixed-slice siblings like magpie_today or magpie_editions, but never names an alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'across recent editions' and 'keyword' implies when this tool applies versus browsing-type siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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