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 description's job is to add matching behavior — and it does: AND semantics across every word of 3+ letters, plus explicit per-field weights (title 3, tag 2, excerpt/body 1). That tells an agent how to phrase queries and why results are ordered as they are, which is real value beyond the annotation block.

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 sentences, zero filler: scope first, then matching and ranking semantics. Dense and front-loaded with nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 three-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and how matches are scored. It stops short of saying what a result record contains (title, date, url, type) or whether post and episode hits are merged, which would matter since no output schema exists.

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 only 33% (only `since` is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does for the most important parameter by defining how `query` is tokenized and matched. `limit` is left entirely to the schema's min/max/default, which is acceptable but keeps this below a 5.

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 plus the two resources it covers (brokeit.dev posts and recent podcast stories), which separates it from get_post and latest_news, both of which retrieve rather than keyword-search. It could have named those siblings explicitly, but the search framing is clear enough to route an agent.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word "Searches" — there is no statement of when to prefer this over latest_news or get_post, no note that results are ranked by the scoring scheme rather than recency. An agent can infer intent but must guess at the boundary cases.

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