search_announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope detail (includes set-aside announcements, reports why each was set aside or which case/rule absorbed it), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how 'limit' behaves.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the return scope is stated first, then the two filtered fields. The kind/source glosses are terse but justified given zero schema description coverage.

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 does decent work describing what comes back (announcement plus the decision about it). However, two of four parameters lack any semantics and there is no note on result volume or default limit behavior.

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%, so the description must carry the parameters. It usefully enumerates kind values (filing, reminder, investigation, settlement, other) and gives a source example (prnewswire), but 'query' and 'limit' are left entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search every announcement the tracker has read') and clarifies scope, including set-aside items and the decision attached to each. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_cases or get_case, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_cases/get_case, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it searches announcements and their decisions.

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