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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies the search is limited to a rolling 50-item window and matches against headline/sub-headline excerpt, which are not in the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the crucial constraint (rolling window) is placed prominently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only search tool with two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the source, the matching fields, the rolling-window behavior, and the fact that it's not a historical archive. The annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage, documenting both parameters clearly: 'query' as 'Company name or keyword to match' and 'limit' as 'Max matches to return, 1-50 (default 20).' The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 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'), a specific resource ('Newswire.com's current newsroom feed'), and the matching scope ('headline and sub-headline excerpt'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like newswire_com_latest_releases (which likely returns all recent releases) and newswire_com_get_release (which fetches a specific release) by specifying it's a keyword 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 explicitly states the search operates only on the live rolling 50-item window and is not a historical archive, which tells the agent when to use it (current news only). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when to prefer sibling tools like newswire_com_latest_releases, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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