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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful scope context (660+ articles, editorial rather than tool data), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or truncation behavior.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause adds information an agent can use.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needs no explanation, and the corpus scope is clear. However, for a search tool the omission of the limit parameter and any notion of result ordering or pagination leaves a practical gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that query is keyword-based and category is optional, but never mentions the limit parameter or its 25-result cap, and gives no format hints for category values.

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 (search) and resource (editorial articles), and enumerates the content types covered, which tells an agent what corpus it's hitting. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with get_article (single-article fetch) or search_tools (different corpus), so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 phrase 'by keywords and optional category' implies the invocation mode, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_article or search_tools, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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