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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing which fields the query is matched against (titles, summaries, charities, causes, places) and that results include a link to each story page, so the agent knows the shape of the match logic and output.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, matching/return behavior second. No filler, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers what comes back (best matches with a link to each story page) and the schema fully documents all five filter parameters. It could say more about ranking or result limits, but for a search tool it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented (cause deferring to list_causes, limit default/max, query examples). The description's statement that matching spans titles/summaries/charities/causes/places lightly enriches the query parameter, but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: search real charity stories, with the creator-facing use case stated. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_story (singular retrieval) by being a search over multiple fields, though it never names the sibling tools explicitly.

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?

The description gives context (stories a creator could make a video or post about) but no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor routing to get_story or list_causes beyond the inline 'Use list_causes for the values' note on the cause parameter. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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