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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It discloses the keyword search behavior and optional section filter, and notes the legacy alias status. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention result ordering, pagination, or potential deprecation. The alias note adds value but falls short of rich transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the alias identification, followed by the operational scope and alternative tool guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 simple search tool with no output schema and all parameters documented, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and alternative tools. The only gap is the lack of an explicit description of the return format, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of output schema, this is a minor omission.

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%, with each parameter (query, section, limit) already well-documented. The description merely reiterates the keyword-over-title/summary behavior and the optional section, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies this as a legacy alias for keyword_search_news, specifies the keyword search over title/summary with optional section, and explicitly distinguishes it from search_news for semantic/vector search. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from all sibling tools.

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 explicitly states 'use search_news for semantic/vector search', implying this is the correct tool for keyword searches. It also names keyword_search_news as the canonical equivalent, guiding agents on when to use this legacy alias versus the modern tool.

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