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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are relevance-ranked blended with recency, and the result set is not paginated — the latter materially changes how an agent should size '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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the query-syntax and ranking caveats following in priority order.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly: syntax support, ranking behavior, and the absence of pagination. Return shape (fields per hit, total-count availability) is unaddressed but secondary.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by documenting query syntax the schema does not (quoted phrases, OR, -exclusion). It still says nothing about how since/limit interact with the non-paginated ranking.

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 and resource ('Full-text search over indexed AI news') that clearly separates it from get_latest_news and get_feed_stats, which are non-search siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 by the search semantics and the query syntax note, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and get_latest_news (a plausible alternative for browsing recent items) is never mentioned as the substitute.

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