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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: which fields a hit can match, the default time-descending ordering, and the fixed five-value category taxonomy — something the schema does not expose. It stops short of describing result volume or paging, hence 4 rather than 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by triggers, default behavior, and the category enum — four clauses, each carrying distinct information with no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

One optional string parameter, no output schema, no nested objects, read-only. Matching fields, default ordering, default (empty-query) behavior, and the category domain are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents query. The description still contributes the default semantics (omit → all reports, sorted by publish time descending) and the closed category vocabulary, which the schema lacks entirely. This is a modest but genuine addition over the structured fields.

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+resource (检索站内报道) and immediately enumerates the searched fields (标题、摘要、正文、标签、分类), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is hit. The sibling set is all match/standings/team lookups, so the news-search scope is unmistakably distinct.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings (「有没有关于某队的报道」「最新的转会新闻」) and an explicit second mode: omitting query returns everything time-descending for open-ended asks like「最近有什么新闻」. Both when-to-use and the alternative invocation shape are spelled out.

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