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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one added behavioral fact is the 'published' scope (excluding drafts), which is genuinely useful; the trailing '[no key]' is opaque and adds no actionable context.

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?

Single front-loaded clause with no filler sentences. The bracketed '[no key]' fragment is cryptic enough to be mild noise rather than a useful addition.

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 3-param search tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description omits parameter meaning, return shape/result ordering, and routing versus siblings. Only the published-articles scope is established.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it doesn't. 'by title, description, tags, and shelf' loosely maps to search targets but never explains what 'query' is versus 'shelf', and 'limit' is entirely unaddressed.

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 (published articles) plus the fields searched, which separates it from get_article/list_articles. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it competes with, so it's clear but not sibling-differentiated in the strongest sense.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent can infer it's a search tool, but nothing tells it why to pick this over find_articles_for_claim, related_articles, or list_articles.

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