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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing result ordering (newest first) and the shape of each item (summary, sentiment, link). It does not mention behavior on zero matches or any rate limits, but for a read-only search that is a minor gap.

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 tightly packed sentence that front-loads the matching rule, then ordering, then return contents. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition supplies purpose, ordering and return fields. Minor omissions are empty-result behavior and explicit sibling routing, neither critical to calling the tool correctly.

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 100% and both parameters already carry constraints and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces what the query parameter means by giving example phrases but adds nothing about limit beyond ordering implications. Reasonable reliance on the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Finds) and resource (stories) plus the matching rule (headline or topic containing a word or phrase). The examples ('rate cut', 'tariffs') make the search semantics concrete. It stops short of naming a sibling such as latest_news, so an agent must infer why to pick this over the other news tools.

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?

Clear context for when to reach for it: keyword or phrase lookup with illustrative examples, plus the 'newest first' result ordering. No explicit exclusion tells the agent when not to use it versus latest_news, market_analysis or get_story, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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