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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: every result must be cited verbatim from its 'cite' field plus the original source's attribution requirement. That is valuable compliance context beyond the structured fields. It does not disclose result volume, ordering, or pagination behavior tied to 'limit'.

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?

Front-loaded with the search scope in the first sentence, followed by the citation requirement. The second sentence is dense (an embedded citation template) but every clause carries required operational information, so it earns its length.

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, no-output-schema search tool with a closed-world read annotation set, the definition covers purpose and citation obligations adequately, but leaves query semantics and limit behavior unspecified. An agent can call it, yet may mis-form the query.

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% — 'institution' is documented but 'query' and 'limit' are not — so the description carries the burden of clarifying them. It says nothing about whether 'query' is free-text, keyword, or boolean, and nothing about the default or meaning of 'limit' beyond the schema's 1-20 range.

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 (Search) and a well-defined resource (official releases from central banks, statistics offices, international organizations and regulators), which is clearly distinct from the sibling series/table lookup tools. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when the agent wants time-series data instead of announcements, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer search_series or get_series over this tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The presence of a 'query' parameter implies free-text lookup, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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