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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete behavioral detail beyond annotations: omitting organization_ids returns HTTP 422 with the exact error message. It also discloses the return contract (news_articles and pagination), which helps the agent predict the outcome.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information: scope, required parameter and failure mode, filter options, return shape, and intended use case. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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?

Given that a full output schema exists and the input schema is rich, the description still adds missing call context: prerequisite resolution, mandatory parameter behavior, filtering axes, pagination control, and the 422 failure condition. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 80% and the input schema already provides detailed documentation for all five parameters. The description adds the required-status consequence for organization_ids and sample categories, but mostly restates what the schema already covers. This matches the baseline expected for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the resource as news coverage for specific companies and scopes it by required organization_ids, distinguishing it from generic search siblings like get_reddit_search or get_twitter_tweet_advanced_search. However, the action verb 'search' is supplied by the tool name/title rather than explicitly in the description, so it misses a perfect 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?

It explicitly tells the agent to resolve companies first, naming get_apollo_organizations_enrich and post_apollo_mixed_companies_search as prerequisite alternatives. It also explains when to use the tool: to catch a trigger event before reaching out. This is strong, actionable routing guidance.

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