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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: 'Free, no auth' and the return structure ('up to 10 hits with title, date, one-line summary and URL'). It doesn't mention rate limits or no-result behavior, but given annotations, this is a solid addition beyond structured data.

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 two sentences plus an example, with zero fluff. It front-loads the use case and immediately specifies what it searches, what it returns, and how to proceed. The example is compact and practical, and every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what it searches, what it returns, limitations (up to 10 hits), authentication (none), and downstream action (get_record). Annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, including a realistic example.

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% (query and kind have descriptions; limit does not). The description itself does not explain the parameters beyond an example JSON, which adds limited value. The 'kind' semantics are already in the schema. The example helps but the description does not compensate fully for the missing limit documentation.

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 action ('Searches New Runtime's Field Notes, Raw Signals and Analyses'), a concrete resource (New Runtime archive), and the returned data (title, date, summary, URL). It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to get_record for full text, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 clear context: 'Use when you need dated, source-linked coverage... without crawling the web.' This implies when to use it. It also names a follow-up action (get_record) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools like get_forecasts or what_changed. Still, the guidance is adequate for routing.

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