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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: matching is accent- and case-insensitive, keyword searches across title, OCR, and AI abstracts in French and English, and the French-keyword preference. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence delivers essential keyword usage guidance. No redundant or wasted wording.

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 search tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search scope, language handling, and matching behavior. It omits details like sorting or pagination, but the schema covers limit and with_description, so the overall context is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 73%, not high enough to fully rely on schema, but the description adds useful meaning to the keyword parameter (search scope, language) and lists searchable dimensions. It does not, however, explain the undocumented parameters like offset, subject, or newspaper beyond naming them, leaving some gaps.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('IWAC newspaper articles'), and lists concrete search dimensions (keyword, country, newspaper, subject, date range). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_audiovisual or search_documents.

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?

It clearly implies use for newspaper article search and gives a context-specific guideline: 'Use French concept keywords regardless of the user's report language.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative search tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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