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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the tool is backed by Perplexity, returns ranked results, and includes an extract. There is no contradiction.

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 no filler; it front-loads the action, then the return format, then the usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers the tool's function, output fields, and the main use case. While it doesn't mention result limits or error cases, that detail is not required for an agent to confidently select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The tool-level description adds no extra parameter semantics, keeping this at the baseline 3.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the web (Perplexity)') and immediately states the return shape (ranked results with title, URL, date, extract). It distinguishes itself from SWOGE-internal siblings by naming external use cases, so an agent can separate it from tools like osint_lookup or swoge_economy.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it for news, projects, people, anything outside SWOGE data.' It provides clear context but stops short of naming alternative tools or giving an explicit when-not-to-use instruction, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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