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

With no annotations, description fully covers behavioral traits: deduplication, conflict flagging, languages, source links, and AI processing caveat. Still lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but these are less critical for a search tool.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then key features, then caveat. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and 8 optional parameters, the description covers core aspects (deduplication, languages, conflicts, sources) but lacks details on pagination, output format, or conflict interpretation. Could be more complete.

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 low (38%), but description adds context about languages and deduplication that aids parameter interpretation. Does not explicitly describe all 8 parameters, partially compensating.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'COMPAMIR structured news events', and adds distinguishing features (deduplication, conflict flagging, languages). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools get_event and list_conflicts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_event or list_conflicts. The description implies it is for searching, but lacks when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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