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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are ordered newest first, and news items are dated source material rather than live status or price data — a real caveat that prevents misuse. Pagination behavior and total-count semantics are left unmentioned.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by ordering and then sibling routing. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a five-parameter search tool with 20% schema description coverage, the description should resolve the help/article distinction and default paging behavior; those are the practical gaps an agent would hit.

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 only 20% — just the topic parameter is documented. The description implies query matches title/excerpt/topic, but it never explains the kind enum (help vs article), nor how limit (default 10, max 100) and offset behave. With four of five parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the gap is material.

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 (search) and resource scope (published help, developer tutorials, news, deep dives) and names exactly which fields are matched (title, excerpt, topic). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to list_topics and developer-docs, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 gives clear routing guidance: use list_topics to obtain topic IDs and developer-docs for developer tutorials. It does not cover when to prefer get_article for a known item, and the 'developer-docs' reference is not one of the declared siblings, which slightly muddies the alternatives picture.

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