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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral details beyond that: the required API scope and the language fallback behavior (English for untranslated fields). These enrich the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the critical usage requirement and a behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool has 8 parameters and many sibling list/search tools, but the description provides minimal high-level context. While the rich schema and existing output schema cover the mechanics, the description omits guidance on when to choose this search tool over other list tools and does not elaborate on the search scope or result types. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, with detailed explanations for every parameter. The description itself adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the lang fallback behavior that the schema already documents. Since the schema carries the full weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Search stories.' This clearly conveys the core action, and the tool name 'search_list' reinforces it. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like stories_list, which also deals with stories, leaving the distinction between search and list implicit.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires the search API scope') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stories_list, sources_list, or topics_list. There is no mention of exclusions, preferred conditions, or the /search endpoint mentioned in the schema's parameter description.

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