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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each result carries status and product lifecycle, which is useful return context, but says nothing about ranking, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or what 'well-sourced' actually means.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the return payload. The examples earn their place by clarifying the keyword style, though the description largely restates the title frame.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden; it offers only 'status and product lifecycle'. Core call mechanics are covered via the schema, but result ranking, empty-result behavior, and the meaning of 'well-sourced' are left unaddressed.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented (including default/max for limit). The description's example keywords ('battery', 'display', 'price') add mild practical flavor but no new syntax or constraint information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (find/search) plus a specific resource (pre-release reports) and scope (across every tracked product), with concrete example keywords. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling get_reports, which sounds adjacent, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate the two from text alone.

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?

Keyword-based search across all products implies the usage context (broad discovery rather than per-product retrieval), but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated. An agent must infer that get_reports is the per-product counterpart.

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