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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new traits: matching is literal rather than semantic, the corpus is a static dated snapshot, and results carry publisher attribution with canonical and source links. Good value beyond the structured fields.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement and its exclusion front-loaded before the return-shape sentence. Every clause carries information.

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 sketches the return payload (excerpts, URLs, source links), and it defines the corpus boundary for a 5-parameter tool. Remaining gaps are the undocumented limit parameter and date-format expectations, which are minor but non-trivial.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps query to 'literal keywords', names the industry filter, and clarifies the date bounds are inclusive and UTC — real added meaning. But limit is never mentioned, and date format/enum values are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus a clearly bounded resource (a small dated CII metadata snapshot) and the searchable dimensions (literal keywords, industry, inclusive UTC dates). The negative scoping ("not whole-site or live search") sharpens what it is, though it does not name or contrast the siblings find_company / get_article_summary.

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?

States the context of use (literal keyword lookup inside a static dated snapshot) and, more usefully, an explicit exclusion: it is not whole-site or live search. No alternative tool is named for those excluded cases, so an agent must still infer where to go for live or non-snapshot queries.

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