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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by listing the exact return fields (slug, title, publisher, vertical, snippet, audio_url, listen_seconds) and explaining the vertical scoping behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention edge cases like empty queries or pagination 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the resource, return fields, and vertical scoping without unnecessary fluff.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the return fields, and the schema provides constraints for limit and query. It does not explain sorting or empty-query behavior, but given the annotations and schema, the context is sufficiently covered for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 33%, with only 'query' having a schema description. The description compensates for 'vertical' by listing allowed values, but 'limit' is not mentioned in either the schema description or the tool description. The parameter semantics are partially clarified, but not fully compensated for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Storyflo's article corpus'), and lists the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like search_declassified, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from other search tools.

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 provides usage guidance for the vertical parameter ('Use vertical to scope') but does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_declassified or get_article. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated, and there are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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