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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses a 50-report cap, the last N days window, sorting by publication date, and that no authentication is required. This goes beyond the safety profile provided by annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete filtering examples, behavior limits, and source/auth context. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or filler content.

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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: purpose, parameter examples, limits, sorting, and auth. It does not discuss pagination or explicitly route to sibling tools, but for a simple two-parameter search tool this is nearly complete.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that keyword searches are applied to the title only and includes additional examples like region names and the 'last N days' time window, enriching parameter understanding beyond the schema itself.

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 states the tool searches USDA AMS market news reports by commodity or topic keyword within the title, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get/list by the 'within the title' scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 provides useful context such as example keywords, result limit, time window, and sorting, implying when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with usdamars.reports.list or usdamars.reports.get, leaving the selection decision largely inferred.

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