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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool searches published news and messages. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, what 'published' means, or how parameters like include_content or since affect 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?

The single sentence is concise and readable, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations or output schema, a one-line description is insufficient and fails to provide necessary structure or detail.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several content-related siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the query format, return shape, filtering semantics, or relationship to list_account_articles, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool 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 the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (query, limit, since, include_content). Since the schema itself has no field descriptions, the agent receives no semantic guidance beyond parameter names, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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') and resource ('published news and messages'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_account_articles, but the phrasing does delineate a search function over published content rather than account management or publishing operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_account_articles, lookup_account, or get_recharge. No conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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