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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the exact fields returned (title, URL, excerpt, date) and the empty-query fallback to newest articles. It does not cover pagination or result-count behavior, so not a 5.

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-loads the purpose, then return fields, then the empty-query rule; every sentence carries information. The Persian and English statements are near-duplicates, which adds length but serves the bilingual audience.

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 enumerates the return fields, and both parameters are documented. It is largely self-sufficient for a two-parameter read tool, missing only minor details like result ordering or pagination.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics for the optional `query` parameter by disclosing that an empty value returns the newest articles. The `limit` parameter is 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?

The description gives a specific verb (search) and resource (EnerviaPower knowledge base articles) and scopes the domain to Persian solar/battery/power content. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (products, contact, calculators), though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 context is clear: it queries the article knowledge base, and the empty-query-browses-newest behavior tells the agent a valid calling pattern beyond a keyword search. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls 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.