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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail—'Results include provenance links when available'—but does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or handling of empty results. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the search scope concisely and ends with a useful note about provenance links. There is no filler or repetition, and every element 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 read-only search tool with a straightforward schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and a key result feature. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning result ordering or relationship to get_latest_signals, but the combination of schema, annotations, and description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, with clear descriptions for query, limit, and topic. The tool description does not add much beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description specifies a clear search verb and a concrete resource scope: technology, finance, AI, geopolitical, and defense news, research, analysis, publishers, and source names. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_latest_signals or get_trending_signals, but the domain and search focus are specific enough to distinguish it.

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 implies the tool is used when an agent needs to find news or research updates matching a query, and the required 'query' parameter reinforces this. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_latest_signals or get_signal, nor any mention of exclusions.

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