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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world semantics, so safety is covered. The description adds the scope of the searchable fields, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result ordering/relevance, what happens with zero matches, or whether matching is exact or fuzzy.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb-resource pair first and the field scope as parenthetical detail. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only gap an agent might want is how results are ranked/ordered, but that is a minor omission.

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 both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in structured fields. The description's field list adds some meaning about what 'query' matches against, but adds nothing about limit behavior beyond the schema's range and default.

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?

Specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('article archive'), with an enumerated set of searchable fields (headline, summary, key facts, entities, tickers) that tells an agent what kind of matching to expect. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_article or get_latest, so the sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 keyword' suggests you use this when you don't have an identifier, versus get_article (by id) or get_latest (browse). No explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative routing is given.

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