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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does so richly: the return shape ({query, count, results, index} with per-result fields and score range), the limit default/cap, first-call latency from index build, and the RESTRICTED keyed-auth posture. This is context well beyond what the single annotation provides.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, limits, latency, auth, and alternatives in dense sequential sentences. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the limit restatement is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 usefully specifies the return structure and per-result fields. Combined with latency, auth, and sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates the limit default (20) and hard cap (50), which the schema already declares, and adds no new syntactic or format detail for query. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('TF-IDF full-text search over the archived news headlines + the pulse-fact corpus') and explicitly distinguishes the index type ('lexical index, not embeddings'). It names the sibling tools it must not be confused with (get_news, ol_filing_search), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives explicit alternatives with selection conditions: 'For per-ticker archive reads use get_news; for semantic retrieval over SEC filings use ol_filing_search.' It also states the entry prerequisite (needs an Oxford Ledge API key configured by the operator) and that anonymous callers are refused.

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