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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds a concrete pricing model (2 credits per started 10 results, +1 per page when content is included) and clarifies that fetched content is compact markdown, which materially affects invocation decisions.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the cost implication. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to add what structured fields cannot: the cost model and the optional content behavior. It does both, so nothing an agent needs to call this 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying cost to the result count ('per started 10 results') and by specifying the output format of the content parameter ('compact markdown'), which the schema does not state.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search the web or news') and even states the return shape ('titles, URLs and descriptions'), which is well beyond a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from crawling/scraping siblings like ragfeed_scrape or ragfeed_crawl, so it stops short of a 5.

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: the source modes and the cost model hint at when to include content, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., versus ragfeed_scrape or ragfeed_extract) and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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