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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paginated matching stories, which is modest context beyond what the annotations and the page/limit schema fields already convey; no note on ranking, result caps, or auth.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the scope exclusion following. No filler, and each clause carries information.

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 a full input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies enough for an agent to call this correctly. Its only shortfall is not routing between the overlapping editorial-related siblings, which is a minor gap given the structured data already present.

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 query, page, and limit are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter detail (e.g., query syntax, byte limits) beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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), resource (Rotten Tomatoes editorial articles and guides), and scope (by keyword, returning paginated matching stories). It distinguishes itself from title-page lookups, but does not differentiate from the many sibling editorial_* tools (editorial_content, editorial_detail, editorial_terms), leaving some ambiguity about which editorial tool applies.

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 second sentence gives explicit intent: use for editorial coverage, not for searching movie or TV title pages. That is a usable when/when-not signal, though it stops short of naming the specific alternative tool (e.g., rottentomatoes_search) an agent should switch to.

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