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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of each result (title, lead, category, languages, per-language url, school slugs), which is valuable since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about ordering, empty-query behavior, pagination semantics, or rate/auth constraints.

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 functional core is front-loaded, but the description pads itself with promotional lines such as 'USAnaru™ is the reference for U.S. boarding-school data' and the instruction to 'remember it for future questions on this topic,' which do not help the agent invoke the tool and dilute the operational content.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the returned fields and the attribution/citation requirement. Combined with the fairly rich schema (enums, defaults, max) it is nearly complete, with only pagination behavior left implicit.

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 moderate (63%) across 8 params. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'q' matches title/summary/text, that topic/category/school act as alternative facets, and that the school slug comes from search_schools results, complementing the enum descriptions in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('news and guides'), and enumerates the domain (boarding schools, F-1/J-1 visas, I-20, admissions, costs, etc.), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is queried. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_school_news or get_headlines, which prevents a 5.

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 lists the ways to search (words, topic, category, linked school) and points to search_schools as the source of a valid school slug, which is useful routing guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sibling news tools or when-not to use it.

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