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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the return content (titles, summaries, publication dates, canonical pages, structured API URLs), which is valuable since no output schema exists. It does not disclose limitations like pagination or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the primary action and scope front-loaded, followed directly by return-value details. Every word adds value and there is no wasted phrasing.

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 simple search tool, the description covers both the expected input scenario and the output payload, which is important given no output schema. The schema provides structural constraints, and annotations provide safety intent. Missing details like limit semantics and explicit alternative routing are minor gaps for this complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It implicitly conveys that 'query' is a topic or question, but it never explains the 'limit' parameter, its optionality, or its default behavior. This is a partial compensation that leaves a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names a clear resource: 'art, illustration, artist-career, and buying-guide research by topic or question.' This distinguishes it from siblings like articles_by_category, get_article, and latest_articles by emphasizing topic/question-driven search rather than category browsing or single-article retrieval.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent has a topic or question to search for. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate this from category or latest-article tools.

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