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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world safety profile. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the exact return shape (headline, ≤300-char summary, date, category, countries, link) and the important constraint that full article text is never returned, along with source-attribution context.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then filters; no filler sentences. The middle sentence is long but each clause (fields returned, no full text, attribution) carries distinct information, so it earns its space.

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 5-param, zero-required search tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, data provenance, return shape and filtering. Only explicit usage/exclusion guidance is missing, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameters well, including a detailed locale description. The description's line about filtering by words, category, country and language just restates the schema fields without adding syntax or behavioral nuance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (recent news about campervans, motorhomes, road travel) plus the data source (OpenVan.camp from public news sources). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all travel-data utilities rather than news search.

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 says what can be filtered by (words in headline, category, country, language), which implies how to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. Since no sibling covers news, the omission is less costly, but the guidance remains only implied.

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