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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral traits such as typo-tolerance, required-term coverage, and relevance diagnostics, which go beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the return contract, providing transparency about what to expect.

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 verb and resource, then lists key features and the return contract. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the search scope, filters, return contract, and article restriction, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented individually. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that search and filters cover title, slug, tags, summary, body, and publication metadata, which is not fully evident from parameter descriptions alone. This enhances understanding of query behavior.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'The Agent Times article corpus,' with specific features like typo-tolerant coverage and filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it returns the same structured contract as tat_search but restricted to article results.

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 clear context for use: it's an article-specific search with filters and diagnostics. It implicitly contrasts with tat_search by saying 'restricted to article results,' which suggests when to use this versus the broader search. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or other alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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