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

Annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) cover the safety profile, yet the description adds real behavioral context: article bodies are never returned, coverage windows vary by feed, a failed query silently retries with query_mode='any_term', and analysis is null for non-business or unanalysed articles. It omits any note on rate limits or auth, keeping it short of 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?

Well front-loaded (purpose, then output shape, then coverage caveats, then per-parameter bullets) and the bulleted layout is easy to scan, with every sentence carrying information. It is long, and the 'Returns {...}' block partly restates the existing output schema, so it is not maximally tight.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is complete: all arguments are documented, result shape and null semantics are noted, the retry fallback is disclosed, and follow-up tools are named. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the return detail is bonus given an output schema exists.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it documents every one of the 8 parameters with semantics the schema lacks (lexical AND semantics, phrase/-exclusion syntax, cross-listing ticker matching, the 10 topic values and their boost-vs-filter behavior, inclusive ISO dates, publisher slugs sourced from results, sort='relevance' requiring a query, limit bounds).

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+'recent business, economics and health news from major financial publishers and public-health agencies', which tells an agent exactly what corpus it searches. The closing routing sentence names sibling tools (search_series, run_sql, get_market_data, search_earnings_transcripts), cleanly separating it from adjacent tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and what-to-do-next guidance: 'Follow up macro stories with search_series / run_sql and company stories with get_market_data / search_earnings_transcripts.' It also prescribes search strategy ('Start with ONE distinctive term'), states that arguments AND together, and explains that topic boosts with a query but filters without one.

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