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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive/non-idempotent); the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: article bodies are never returned, coverage windows vary by feed (late 2024 to mid 2026), the query engine falls back to ANY-word matching reported via meta.query_mode, and analysis is null for non-business or unanalysed articles. That is well beyond what structured fields convey.

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 purpose, return shape and coverage caveat, then uses a bulleted list keyed one-to-one to parameters, ending with follow-up routing. Length is justified by 8 undocumented parameters, and no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers the return envelope (rows/meta fields), the AND-combination rule, coverage limits, null-analysis cases, and next-step tools. Even though an output schema exists, the extra notes about query_mode/topic_mode and analysis nullability add value rather than duplicating it.

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% across 8 params, so the description carries the whole load and does so: query matching semantics (all words, exact phrases, -exclusion), bare-symbol tickers with automatic share-class/cross-listing equivalence, the boost-vs-filter distinction for topic, inclusive ISO dates, source slugs, sort='relevance' requiring a query, and limit bounds. Almost every parameter gains meaning not present in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search recent business, economics and health news from major financial publishers and public-health agencies') and scopes the corpus precisely. It also implicitly positions itself as the entry point versus siblings by naming which tools to follow up with for macro (search_series / run_sql) versus company (get_market_data / search_earnings_transcripts) stories.

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?

Strong operational guidance: 'Start with ONE distinctive term', note that arguments combine with AND, that topic boosts with a query but filters without one, and explicit routing of follow-up work to sibling tools. It stops short of stating when NOT to use search_news versus adjacent retrievers like search_company_filings or search_media_appearances.

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