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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the ephemeral ~20-item rolling window, meaning repeated calls may return different results despite the idempotent hint. No rate limits or return-format details, but the window disclosure is the key trait.

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 tight sentences; the matching fields and the rolling-window caveat are both front-loaded with zero filler.

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, 2-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching scope, and the ephemeral feed limit. It omits nothing critical, though a hint about result shape or ordering would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by specifying what 'query' matches against (headline, issuer name, excerpt, industry tags), which the schema's terse 'Company name or keyword to match' 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 (search) and resource (PRWeb's current site-wide feed) and names the source domain. The phrasing 'search over... feed' implicitly separates it from prweb_get_release (single release) and prweb_latest_releases (unfiltered listing).

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?

Explicitly frames the tool's scope with 'Searches only the live rolling ~20-item window each call — not a historical archive,' which is a clear when-not constraint. It does not, however, name sibling tools as alternatives for historical or single-release lookups.

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