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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by saying the feed is canonical and only published reporting is returned, but it does not describe query matching behavior or pagination.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and scoped to a specific feed. Every word 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?

This is a simple read-only search tool with a robust annotation set and an output schema, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. However, the description lacks explicit input-parameter semantics and alternative routing guidance, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 burden of explaining query and limit. It gives the search subject area but never explicitly states that query is free-text search input or that limit caps the number of results, leaving important parameter semantics undocumented.

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 verb and resource: finding published consumer wireless reporting in the canonical SaveOnPhone news feed. It clearly distinguishes this article/reporting lookup tool from the sibling plan-focused tools like search_plans and get_plan_details.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs published consumer wireless reporting from the canonical SaveOnPhone feed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_plans or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusions.

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