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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description is free to add operational context, and it does: the match fields (headline/dateline/excerpt), the corpus size (~3,500 releases), the 7-day window, and the non-obvious fact that a release can appear once per language. That multilingual duplication note is genuinely useful behavior an agent would otherwise misread as duplicate 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?

A single dense sentence with the scope statement front-loaded and the exclusion last, which is the right order. The parenthetical source and stats are informative rather than padding, though the sentence is long enough that it reads as packed rather than crisp.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and full param coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: matching fields, time window, corpus size, language semantics. Only the shape of returned results is unaddressed, and that is a minor omission here.

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 already 100%, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description still adds value beyond it by naming which fields the query matches against and reinforcing the default multi-language behavior of the language param, which the schema only hints at.

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 (Business Wire releases) plus the exact scope: headline/dateline/excerpt matching over the current all-news channel. It implicitly separates itself from businesswire_get_release and businesswire_latest_releases via the 'search' framing, but never names a sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 '~last 7 days ... not a historical archive' clause is an effective when-not boundary, but the description never tells the agent when to prefer this over businesswire_latest_releases or businesswire_get_release. Usage is implied by scope rather than stated, which is the definition of a 3.

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