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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the freshness window, the publisher types indexed, and the explicit archive exclusion that tells the agent older events will not be found.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the defining constraint (recency window) and the archive exclusion, ending with a concrete invocation example. Nothing is padded.

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 would ideally say what a result looks like (headline, source, date, URL), which it omits. Otherwise the operational essentials for a 4-param search tool are present: freshness, source scope, query matching semantics, and an example.

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 75% with lang, query and country already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The worked example ({"query":"Belgium elections","lang":"en"}) adds a little clarity on how query and lang combine, but the undescribed `results` param is ignored and no syntax guidance (operators, phrase handling) is offered.

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 (Searches) and resource (latest news) with a precise recency window (~1-2 days) and source class (public broadcasters and newspapers), plus a negative scope marker ('Not an archive'). It never names its sibling news_headlines, so the agent must infer the keyword-vs-headline distinction from the query semantics rather than being told outright.

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 recent news about a specific subject' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'Not an archive' functions as a when-not exclusion. It stops short of naming news_headlines as the alternative for browsing rather than keyword searching, leaving that routing to inference.

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