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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the live rolling ~20-item window per call, the fact that it is not a historical archive, and the specific fields being matched. This is highly useful and accurately sets expectations for what the search will return.

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 three sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by matching scope and a critical limitation. 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 two-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers source, matching fields, live window limitation, and non-archival behavior. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the query parameter by specifying that matching occurs against headline, issuer name, excerpt, and industry tags, and clarifies the temporal scope of the query. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'company name or keyword' description.

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 and resource: keyword/company search over PR Newswire's current site-wide feed. It further specifies matching fields (headline, issuer name, excerpt, industry tags) and clearly distinguishes itself from a historical archive, which separates it from sibling tools like prnewswire_get_release and prnewswire_latest_releases.

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 gives clear context: this tool searches only the live rolling ~20-item window, not a historical archive. This is an explicit when-not condition, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or state exactly when to prefer them over this tool.

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