Find who covers a topic (free, no text)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: exactly which fields are returned (publication, prices, word count, short description), the guarantee that article text is never returned, and that no API key is required.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return contract before the syntax and pricing notes. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, the key omission (no article text), query syntax, and access requirements, while annotations carry the safety profile. It could mention result-limit/pagination behavior, but limit is already documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by documenting query syntax (quoted phrases and -word exclusion) that the schema's plain 'Search words' entry does not convey. This is real added meaning for the required parameter.

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 and resource (full-text search of licensable articles on Opedd) and clarifies scope by noting it returns metadata only, never article text. This implicitly separates it from text-returning siblings like search_passages, but no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it 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?

The 'Free; no key needed' note gives useful invocation context, and the query-syntax hints imply a keyword-search use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as search_passages, lookup_content, or browse_registry, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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