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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a credit cost of 1 per record with a 2-record minimum, which materially affects call strategy. It does not describe pagination edge cases or result shape, but the cost disclosure is a strong addition beyond structured fields.

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: identity/scope first, cost second. Every clause earns its place and the most important constraint (what the tool is) is front-loaded.

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 12 fully documented params, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs. It slightly underplays the facet-driven workflow for discovering topic/outlet filter values, which the schema mentions but the description omits, keeping it from a 5.

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% (all 12 params, including allowed enum values, are documented in the schema). The description only references page_size in a cost context; it adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (the journalists dataset), then enumerates the record contents (outlet, title, beat topics, email/social handle) and provenance (crawled from outlets' own staff pages). An agent can immediately tell this apart from datasets_journalists_item (single record) and datasets_journalists_facets (facet values) without opening any schema.

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?

Provides clear usage context ('for PR outreach') and actionable cost-aware advice ('keep page_size to what you need'). However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, so it stops short of the explicit routing a 5 would require.

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