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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description adds useful context about the aggregated nature and language coverage. It does not elaborate on result ordering or pagination, but the schema provides limit constraints. The added source count and language range provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 conveys the verb, resource, and key attributes. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It communicates the data scope (languages, sources) and filter options. It does not specify what happens with no search query or how results are sorted, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the schema's defaults.

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?

The description lists four filter fields (query, category, country, locale) but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions. Since schema coverage is 60% and the remaining params (limit, locale) have self-describing enums/defaults, the description's redundancy does not substantially deepen understanding. It omits mention of the limit parameter, but the schema covers it well.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Search') and resource ('aggregated vanlife news stories'), with specific scope ('7 languages, 400+ sources'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fuel_prices or list_events, which target different domains.

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 use case: finding vanlife news by various filters. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the news-search tool. The lack of exclusions is acceptable given its focused scope.

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