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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that results are 'grouped multi-source coverage,' which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention pagination, sorting, error behavior, or side effects. 'Search' implies read-only, but this is implicit.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and output behavior with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, this description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and high-level return shape. However, with no output schema and no annotation support, it leaves the 'grouped multi-source coverage' structure underspecified and does not clarify how limit affects results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'By topic' clarifies the required q parameter, but the optional limit parameter receives no semantic explanation. This is partial but insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search story clusters by topic.' It also adds a distinguishing outcome—'Returns grouped multi-source coverage'—which differentiates it from generic siblings like asha_search and asha_search_articles.

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 phrase 'by topic' implies that this tool is appropriate for topic-based cluster searches, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling search tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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