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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world semantics, so the bar is lower; the description still contributes the 'one question at once' constraint, the 3-month recency window for news, and the shape of returned results (grouped by source, dated, with links). It does not mention latency, per-source quotas, or behavior when a source fails.

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 tight blocks — what it searches, when to use it, and a worked example — with the differentiating source list front-loaded and no filler. The example earns its place by showing the exact payload shape.

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 compensates by describing the return layout (grouped by source, dated, linked), and it discloses the recency restriction that would otherwise surprise an agent. Only limit_per_source is unexplained, a minor omission for a tool this well characterized.

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?

The description maps prose source categories onto the enum values (science→arXiv/Crossref, news→GDELT, code→GitHub, people→social/forum platforms), which adds real meaning beyond bare enum tokens. It leaves limit_per_source — the one schema property with no description at 75% coverage — entirely unaddressed.

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 ('Search') and an explicitly enumerated resource set (arXiv, Crossref, GDELT, Internet Archive, GitHub, Wikipedia, Bluesky/Mastodon/Lemmy/HN), which makes its scope far clearer than a generic web search. It never names the list_deep_sources sibling, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring it from the verb.

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?

'Use when: you need rich, hard-to-find, sourced information on a subject' gives a clear positive trigger, reinforced by a concrete example call. There is no when-not guidance and no pointer to list_deep_sources as the alternative for discovering available sources.

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