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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are 'one page,' which is useful pagination context, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or result caps beyond that. It also lists returned fields, which is partly redundant with the existing output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return payload, then parameters, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return shape, and 100% schema description coverage, the description's remaining job is routing and scope — both handled fully. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so q, page, sort, and date_range are all documented in the schema itself. The description restates the meaning of `sort` (relevance or date) and `date_range` (limits publication time) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and it never mentions `page`. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Financial Times articles), names the required `q` parameter, and enumerates what is returned (title, URL, summary, section, publication time, lead image). It also distinguishes itself from four named siblings, so an agent can identify it 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?

The final sentence gives explicit routing: ft_headlines for current stories, ft_news for the cross-section feed, ft_categories to browse sections, ft_article for one story. Each alternative comes with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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