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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. Beyond that the sentence only enumerates returned fields, which the existing output schema already conveys, adding no new behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result limits, or freshness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is well-sized, though the words spent on output fields would have been better spent on query semantics.

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, the description needn't explain return values, yet that is all it does. For a four-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage, the critical gaps — query semantics, sort options, date_range format, pagination — are left entirely unaddressed.

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 mentions no parameters. Four parameters (q, page, sort, date_range) are completely undocumented in both places, so an agent has no idea of accepted sort values or date_range syntax.

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 (Financial Times articles) and enumerates what a result contains. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling ft_headlines, ft_news, or ft_article, which an agent must choose between.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing about when full-text search beats the headline/feed siblings, no prerequisites, no indication of what q matches. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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