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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: results are checked against the original source, and it enumerates the returned fields (titles, summaries, dates, story links, source links) while explicitly scoping out message drafts.

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 with zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the return list and exclusion follow in a natural order, every clause carrying information.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations, the definition covers what is searched, how results are validated, what is returned, and one boundary case. With no output schema, the field enumeration substitutes well; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'query' as 'The situation, in plain words.' The description adds no further syntax, phrasing, or length guidance, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds nothing beyond the structured field.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — searching summaries of real moments small business owners described publicly in podcasts, blogs and forums — plus the verification step against the source. It is clearly distinct from the message-oriented siblings (find_messages, get_message), though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage context is implied by the source types (podcasts, blogs, forums) and by the single exclusion 'Does not return message drafts', which steers the agent away from the messaging tools. However, it never says explicitly when to choose this over find_guides or find_messages, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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