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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds the real behavioral detail: matching is a case-insensitive substring on title and summary, scoped to the last `days` days, an empty list means no match, and there is a 60 req/min rate limit. It also warns that content is Uzbek Latin script, which materially affects success.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and routing before mechanics. Every sentence carries unique information (routing, matching semantics, return shape/rate limit) with no filler.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description still tells the agent the return shape ('up to `limit` items with the same fields as latest_news') and the failure mode (empty list). Combined with the 100%-covered input schema, nothing needed to invoke or interpret it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-duplicative meaning: the substring/case-insensitivity semantics of `query`, the rationale for raising `days` ('increase it for older events'), and how to interpret an empty result. It largely restates the default/max values already in the schema, which caps it at 4.

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 ('Keyword search in gol24.uz news titles and summaries') plus ordering ('newest first'). It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools club_news and person_news, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use cases ('topics, events or names that club_news and person_news cannot resolve') with concrete examples, and an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('for one specific club or person prefer club_news / person_news - they are more precise'). This is a full routing rule.

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