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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that this is a semantic search, that results are summarized stories, and that source outlets and canonical links are returned. It also notes language effectiveness ('Queries work best in Bulgarian'). It does not mention limitations like pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is compact, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose in Bulgarian, then adds usage scope, return contents, and language guidance in three short sentences. Every sentence contributes necessary 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?

For a search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, sources, result contents, and usage context. Combined with the schema's parameter details, it gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing more.

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 descriptions and examples for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by advising that queries work best in Bulgarian and clarifying that results are summarized stories—context that helps select parameter values.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Семантично търсене в агрегирани български новини' (semantic search in aggregated Bulgarian news), naming concrete outlets. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing search over arbitrary topics versus specific article retrieval or recent-news listings.

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 description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use for any question about current events, people, places, or topics in Bulgaria.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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