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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses the return shape (teaser fields), that the total hit count is only reported on offset 0, that paging uses limit 1-50 plus offset, and that an empty result is legitimate. Those are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ending with the handoff to the article tool. The clause 'page with limit (1 to 50) and offset' reads awkwardly and partly duplicates the schema, a small cost.

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?

For a read-only keyword search with a full input schema and an output schema, nothing material is missing: channels, paging, total-count behavior, empty results, and the follow-up tool for full text are all covered.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the news vs pro_news channel meanings. The description restates limit and offset ranges rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Searches FUSSBALL.DE editorial news or the Profi-Newsflash by keyword') and describes exactly what comes back (teasers with title, category, date, excerpt). This clearly separates it from the article sibling, which returns full text.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: 'Use fussballde_news_article with a returned id for the full text', and clarifies that no hits is a valid empty result rather than an error. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over the browsable fussballde_news sibling, so the exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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