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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety needs no restating. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, the 'newest first' ordering, but says nothing about result counts, truncation, or how the 1-20 limit interacts with paging.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the sort order is appended where it reads naturally. It is lean, though it sacrifices some structure that bullets on media types or filtering would have provided.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only search this is close to adequate: it conveys the domain, the media kinds, and the ordering. What is missing is enumeration mapping guidance for the type filter and any note on how results are shaped or bounded, which an agent needs to call it well.

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 a moderate 67% and the description adds no detail on the query string, the limit, or its maximum. Its English media list (documentaries, series, films, podcasts, books) also does not cleanly map onto the enum values (tv-serie, film, bog, podcast, podcast-episode), leaving an agent to guess which token to pass.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and a clearly scoped resource (media covered by the publication), and enumerates the media kinds so an agent knows this is content search rather than case or story lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_related_media or search_cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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 implied: query the publication's media catalog when looking for films/podcasts/books. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_related_media or search_cases instead, and no mention of prerequisites or edge cases, so the agent must infer routing.

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