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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: a hard result cap of 10 items and the shape of each result (title, excerpt, link), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss ranking or relevance behavior, keeping it below 5.

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 sentences, zero waste: scope and domain first, then the return contract and the empty-query rule. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter search tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself and does so adequately (up to 10 items, each with title, excerpt, link), plus the empty-query fallback. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 a single well-documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by defining the semantics of the empty/omitted value (returns latest articles), which the schema does not state.

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 (InvestorMatch's published fundraising guides and articles), and the parenthetical topic list (pitch decks, investor outreach, valuations, term sheets) pins down the content domain. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling investor-lookup tools, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

"Leave query empty for the latest articles" gives a concrete invocation rule for the zero-argument case, which is genuinely useful since the parameter is optional. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over alternatives or what kinds of queries it handles poorly, but the sibling tools occupy a clearly different domain.

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