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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior resume. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are public sources only, returns URLs and excerpts rather than generated content, and suggests concise query terms. This goes beyond the annotations meaningfully.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds return behavior and practical query guidance in a compact, readable way.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering side-effect safety, the description provides enough context for a simple search tool. It clarifies the domain, languages, result type, and non-advice boundary. The main gap is lack of explicit routing advice relative to sibling tools, but this is not critical for calling the tool 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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains the core query semantics ('keywords'), ties the locale to EN or HR, and provides concrete example terms. It does not elaborate on 'limit', but the parameter name plus schema defaults make that reasonably self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('public PulseWatch sources'), and the search mechanism (keywords in EN or HR). It also clarifies what the tool returns ('source URLs and excerpts, not generated advice'), which distinguishes it from tools that might produce generated knowledge or offers.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: use it to find public sources by keyword and language, and it explicitly says the result is source links, not generated advice. It does not directly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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