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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that only published articles are returned, that results are ranked summaries with IDs and canonical URLs rather than full content, and that citation requires a follow-up read. It omits auth requirements, result-count behavior on empty queries, and pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the follow-up instruction second. Nothing repeats the name or title verbatim.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the citation workflow adequately. The one gap is its relationship to the closely related search_fishing_knowledge sibling, which an agent must guess between.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the query accepts a natural-language question, not just keyword strings as the schema example ('trout current') suggests. The limit parameter is left entirely to 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 (find), a specific resource (published Family Fishin fishing articles), and the two accepted query modes (topic or natural-language question). It is clearly distinguishable from get_article, which it names as the follow-up for full text.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: search here first, then 'call get_article to read a full article before citing it' — a concrete when-to-use-next rule. It does not address when to prefer the sibling search_fishing_knowledge over this tool, leaving the main ambiguity unresolved.

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