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

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive, open-world read, and the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations cannot: the indexes matched (titles, fact-check summaries, sources, host quotes), the presence of source links and an oncast.fm URL in each hit, and the expectation to cite both. Pagination and result-cap behavior are left unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and what is matched, then the payload shape, then the citation rule. No filler and nothing buried.

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 usefully characterizes the return (source links plus an oncast.fm URL) and the safety profile is covered by annotations. Minor gaps remain on result ordering, pagination, and how topic/channel interact with a free-text 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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description contributes only the word "keyword" plus an implicit recency scope that has no corresponding schema parameter, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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?

"Search recent verified Oncast stories by keyword" gives a specific verb (search), resource (stories), and a qualifier (recent, verified, keyword) that separates it from a plain listing. It never names get_story or latest_stories explicitly, so the boundary with siblings is inferable but not stated.

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 implied rather than stated: keyword-driven discovery as opposed to fetching one story or browsing the latest. There is no explicit "use this when / not when" or pointer to latest_stories for browsing, though "Cite both" does give a post-retrieval usage rule.

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