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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact fields returned per story, the 300-character summary cap, publisher credit/linking, and the explicit 'Never returns full article text' constraint, which shapes agent expectations about completeness of results.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: scope and provenance first, return shape second, filter axes last. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully specified, yet the description still summarizes them. Scope, source, filtering, and the no-full-text limitation are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents each filter (including a detailed locale explanation) and the 1-20 limit bounds. The description restates the filter axes (headline words, category, country, language) without adding format or syntax detail, 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (recent news about campervans, motorhomes and road travel), names the data source (OpenVan.camp from public news sources), and enumerates the filter dimensions. No sibling tool in the list covers news, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 establishes the content domain clearly, which implies when it is useful, but it never states when to use it versus other tools nor any exclusions or prerequisites. With no sibling overlap this is minor, yet the guideline burden is left to inference.

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