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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the source coverage, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result ordering, relevance behavior, pagination semantics, or what happens with an unmatched query — all of which the agent must infer from a read-only search pattern.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: scope first, routing second. The reader learns the answer to "what does it cover" and "when should I pick this" in the first pass.

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 4-param read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and routing adequately. Minor gaps remain around result behavior and the undocumented 'x' source value, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 q, page, limit and source are all self-documented; baseline is 3. The description's source list roughly mirrors the enum but omits the 'x' value, so it adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond the schema.

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 (indexed AIGC_NEWS records) and an enumerated scope (arXiv, GitHub, news, Product Hunt, Hacker News). It also names the sibling tools it is *not* (search_papers, search_github_projects), so an agent can discriminate without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("explicit cross-source or indexed news/feed searches") plus explicit alternatives with their own selecting conditions (scholarly papers -> search_papers; GitHub discovery -> search_github_projects/search_github_ai_projects). Nothing is left to inference.

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