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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world behavior are covered. The description adds useful provenance (public Moxie search surface, story records) but says nothing about pagination limits, result caps, or ordering beyond 'optional pagination'.

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; the core action is front-loaded and the routing caveat follows immediately. No 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The definition is complete for the selection decision, with only minor gaps around pagination behavior.

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% and all three params carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates 'query' and 'pagination' without adding format or syntax detail (e.g., value bounds for start), leaving it at baseline.

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 (Fox News articles) plus the query and pagination scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling feeds like foxnews_headlines and foxnews_news, but never names them explicitly.

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?

"use this for Fox News coverage, not general web search" gives a clear inclusion condition and an exclusion, routing the agent away from generic web search tools. It doesn't name any sibling Fox News tool as the alternative.

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