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

The annotation already marks this as readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by describing the returned items (tagged with kind and price move where measured) and the ordering. It stops short of disclosing potential pagination or result limits, but for a read-only search tool, the description goes beyond the annotation sufficiently.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The primary action and resource are stated up front, followed by specific details on content types, ordering, and output tagging. Every sentence contributes value, and it is well-structured for quick scanning by an agent.

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 single-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers the core functionality, output content, and ordering. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or date-range constraints, but given the simplicity and the presence of the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to make a correct call.

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 0% and there is only one parameter, 'query'. The description implies that 'query' is the search topic, but it does not explicitly define its format, requiredness (though it is required per schema), or any constraints. For a simple string parameter, the description's contextual implication is adequate, but it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('searches'), a clear resource ('recent news on a topic'), and enumerates the content types (articles, market-moving posts, exchange announcements) and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sentiment_social or market_quotes by its focus on news retrieval with price-move tagging, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 description clearly conveys that this tool is for finding recent news on a given topic, which is a distinct use case among the siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives (e.g., sentiment_social for social sentiment, or filings_search for official filings), nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools. The context is clear but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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