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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: no login required for public research, results carry article_id pointers, and output should be cited with canonical links, primary sources and dates while separating editorial estimates from facts. It still doesn't describe result shape or pagination behavior, which matters for a search tool.

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?

Four compact sentences in a logical order: what to search, what inputs exist, how to follow up, how to cite. The citation-quality sentence is slightly advisory but earns its place by setting output expectations; no filler.

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 5 parameters, no output schema and 0% schema descriptions, the definition should say more about what a result looks like and how to page through it. The discovery-to-detail workflow and citation rules are well covered, but result structure and limit/offset usage are left to inference.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that query accepts a question or keywords, that country takes a name or slug, and that kind filters by entity type — but the six enum values for kind are never characterized, and limit/offset are entirely unmentioned, leaving pagination semantics undefined.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search 567politics reporting, parties, factions, politicians, country systems and policy issues') scoped to political questions. It also implicitly separates itself from siblings by positioning itself as the discovery step that feeds get_article and get_politics_profile.

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?

Explicitly states the follow-up path: use this to search, then read articles via get_article with the returned article_id and profiles via get_politics_profile. It does not mention when to skip search in favor of get_politics_races or list_articles, so the exclusion set is incomplete, but the primary workflow is clear.

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