Search TNL intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds return types but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, result ordering, or handling of empty results. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the verb but does not organize information hierarchically. It could beneficially expand with minimal additional detail.

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?

Given 5 parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description is too sparse. It omits usage context, parameter explanations, and differentiation from siblings. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of guidance for a search tool.

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 only 20% (only publishedSince has a description). The description does not explain the purpose of 'query', 'limit', 'country', or 'category'. An agent must infer their meanings from parameter names, which is insufficient for precise invocation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'TNL stories', and lists return types (structured evidence, impacted assets, entities, impact paths). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like tnl_latest_news or tnl_deep_research, which could be ambiguous. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tnl_latest_news for recent stories or tnl_asset_intelligence for asset-specific search. An agent has no explicit guidance on selection.

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