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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the search corpus is Spanish-language and geographically limited to Guatemala/Central America, and it enumerates the fields returned per item.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the returned fields, followed by the query/filter/timeline mechanics. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the field enumeration slightly crowds the second sentence.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned fields (headline, summary, outlet, section, date), and the annotations carry the safety profile; the Spanish-only and geo scoping are disclosed. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter.

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 only 40% (only from and timeline documented), so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains q is Spanish full-text, from/to form a date-range filter, and timeline: true traces an event over time. Only limit is left unexplained in both places.

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 (searches) and a well-scoped resource: Guatemalan and Central American news items, further enumerated as headline, summary, outlet, section and date. The domain is clearly distinct from siblings like search_legal or search_bills, though the description never names an alternative to route the agent.

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?

It explains capabilities (Spanish full-text, date-range filtering, timeline mode) which implies usage, and gives a condition for timeline: true. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing against the many sibling search_* tools.

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