search_editorial

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by signalling that results are editorial-licensed material intended for news/commentary, but says nothing about the licensing/usage constraints that make editorial content different, nor about result volume or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the subject list is informative rather than wasteful. The trailing 'for news and commentary' is slightly redundant with 'editorial' but does reinforce the use context.

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 86% parameter coverage, return-value and argument details are adequately handled elsewhere. However, for a 7-parameter search tool with multiple search siblings, the description is too thin on differentiation and on the editorial-rights implications that determine whether results are usable.

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 86%, including a NOT-operator hint on query, country-code pattern with the note that editorial rights vary by country, and date/per_page bounds — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, leaving it at the baseline for high coverage.

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 a specific resource ('editorial photos'), with a subject-matter scope of news, sport, entertainment and events. The word 'editorial' plus the 'news and commentary' framing implicitly separates it from the generic search_images / search_videos siblings, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

'For news and commentary' implies the intended use case — editorial rather than commercial/creative imagery — which is a meaningful selection cue against search_images. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or naming the sibling to prefer for non-editorial needs.

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