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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, establishing safety. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: typo correction, alias expansion, required-term coverage, global ranking, and low-confidence rejection, which inform users about query interpretation and result filtering. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by a dense list of backend behaviors and return fields. The return field list is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, but it remains efficient and well-structured.

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 13 optional parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context about scope, behavior, and result characteristics. It does not explicitly explain when to use this over search_articles, but the multi-entity scope and backend details make it fairly complete for a search tool.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage of all 13 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it mentions the query concept but not the agent_id lifecycle). It doesn't need to compensate for gaps, but also doesn't elevate understanding.

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 a search action over a defined resource ('The Agent Times agent-news layer') and lists the three entity types covered (events, articles, agent-action/product metadata). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_articles or get_latest_articles.

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 clearly implies usage for searching across structured events, articles, and metadata, which helps select it over narrower article-only search tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'if you only need articles, use search_articles'), so it stops short of full guidance.

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