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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the 7-day recency ceiling, newest-first ordering, and the shape of each result (named public source, place, time, source type, location precision), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs scope, ordering, result fields and filters with no filler. The mid-sentence clause "what a named public source reported, where and when" is slightly convoluted but still parseable on one read.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's result-field summary is doing necessary work, but it leaves a discrepancy unexplained: it advertises "last 7 days" while the schema's hours parameter defaults to 24, so an agent may wrongly assume a 7-day default window. The absence of any note on default result count or paging also leaves a gap.

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 100% and two parameters are enums, so the schema already carries parameter meaning; the description only names the word/region/type filters and omits hours and limit. Baseline 3 applies, and the description adds no syntax or matching-behavior detail (e.g., whether query is OR/AND across title, summary and place).

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?

States a specific verb-scope ("Reports from the last 7 days, newest first") plus the returned fields (source, place, time, source type, location precision), which clearly identifies it as a report search. It does not name the sibling search_events or search_signals, so the distinction between searching reports vs. events vs. signals must be inferred from the word "reports".

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?

"Filter by words, region and type" implies the intended use case of narrowing a recent-reports feed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Nothing tells an agent when to prefer search_reports over search_events, search_signals, or get_report for a single record.

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