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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses search scope, result format ('up to five article IDs, links and dates'), privacy constraints, and clear non-capabilities like not accessing accounts or spending allowances. This adds meaningful behavioral context for a read-only search tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core search purpose and scope, followed by concise usage constraints and return information. Every sentence adds useful guidance without repetition or 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?

With no output schema, the description provides the essential return shape and limits. It also covers safety/privacy constraints and clarifies what the tool does not do, which is complete enough for a public article search tool with three simple parameters.

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 67%, so the schema already documents `query` and `language`. The description reinforces privacy guidance for `query` and implies the five-result cap for `limit`, but does not explain the `language` parameter or add much beyond 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: searching Ithy's public research library for explanations and worked examples. It also explicitly scopes the search to titles/descriptions rather than the wider web. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `fetch` tool, though returning article IDs implies a follow-up fetch workflow.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: 'Use for a general topic the user wants to look up in Ithy.' It also states important exclusions, such as not sending personal identifiers or private history, and clarifies what the tool does not do. It lacks an explicit pointer to use `fetch` for retrieving full articles.

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