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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the trailing ~48-hour window per call, the matching fields, and the absence of body excerpts. It stops short of stating result ordering or whether the window is rolling per call.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the positive scope (what is searched) front-loaded ahead of the limitations (no body excerpt, 48-hour window). Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the key coverage limits an agent needs to avoid misusing it. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema; the description still adds meaning by specifying what the query string is matched against (headline, keyword tags, geo) — a detail the schema's 'Company name, place or keyword' does not convey.

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 and resource: keyword/company search over EIN Presswire's current news sitemap, and even names the source domain. It scopes what fields are matched (headline, keyword tags, geo), but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools einpresswire_latest_releases or einpresswire_get_release, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 48-hour window and 'not a historical archive' constraint imply when this tool is appropriate, and the 'no body excerpt' note implies what it cannot answer. However, no alternative tool is named for historical or full-text lookups, and there is no explicit when/when-not routing.

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