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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results are first-party, independently inspectable, citable, and search presence does not imply third-party citation. It does not cover result ordering or empty-query behavior.

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 short paragraphs with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The second paragraph is slightly disjointed in transition but each clause carries information.

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?

Rich annotations and an output schema reduce the burden, but with four undocumented parameters and no description of empty-query behavior, result ordering, or how the search axes interact, an agent still has open questions before calling correctly.

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 0% and no parameter in the schema carries meaning, so the description must compensate. It loosely names three axes (topic, category, issuer) that map to query/category/issuer but adds no format, matching semantics, or how the axes combine, and it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its default of 8.

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 ('Search public Pressbox press releases') plus the search axes (topic, category, issuer). It is distinguishable from get_pressbox_release and latest_pressbox_news by name and intent, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'latest' tool.

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 never says when to use this versus latest_pressbox_news or get_pressbox_release, nor does it describe prerequisites or when not to use it. The 'does NOT imply any other assistant has cited it' line is a caveat about interpretation, not usage guidance.

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