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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the result cap (5), ranking (best match first), and the fallback to main pages when nothing matches. It also names the underlying index (llms.txt/sitemap), which tells the agent what corpus is actually searchable.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries information (content types, index source, result cap, ordering, fallback). The second sentence is dense and slightly run-on with the parenthetical about llms.txt and sitemap, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only search with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what corpus, what ranking, how many results, and what happens on a miss. The only meaningful gap is routing guidance relative to the sibling retrieval tools.

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% with a single required 'query' string and examples already in the schema description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only that matching is by keyword, which is marginal beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Find pages on apprised.news by keyword') and enumerates the content types covered (desks, briefs, digests, dossiers, methodology, policy). It never names or contrasts with the sibling tools (get_brief, list_briefs, get_daily_report), so an agent can't tell from this text alone whether to search or fetch directly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'Find' and the keyword framing; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. It also doesn't say to prefer list_briefs/get_brief once a specific page is known, which is the obvious alternative path among the siblings.

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