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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes much further: case-insensitive partial-word matching, AND semantics across keywords, entity-vs-keyword query branching, newest-first ordering, and no relevance ranking. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to predict result quality.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and organized into bullets that each carry distinct, non-redundant information. It is on the longer side for a search tool, but there is little filler to cut.

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-only search tool with no output schema, the definition covers matching, ordering and date scoping well. It does not describe the shape of a returned article (fields such as title/url/date) or pagination behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: it explains that from/to restrict to a period and reinforces the query parameter's intended shape, going beyond the schema's terse field notes.

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+resource ("Search Cryptowisser news by keywords") and spells out the matching model, so the agent knows exactly what this does. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious siblings latest-news, news-about or trending-stories, even though its entity-matching behavior overlaps with news-about.

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?

Strong query-construction guidance: use 1-3 distinctive keywords, avoid full questions, know that extra keywords narrow results, and that there are no synonyms or ranking. It lacks when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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