search_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful details such as page being 0-indexed with a max of 100 and allowed sort values, but it omits auth requirements, rate limits, pagination result behavior, and what 'Formatted search results' actually contains.

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 Args/Returns structure is front-loaded and compact for a 7-parameter tool. Most lines earn their place, though 'Returns: Formatted search results' is vague and the ctx line is mostly boilerplate required by the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. However, the description still lacks usage guidance against sibling tools and behavioral context such as auth or rate limits, leaving gaps for correct tool selection and safe invocation.

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 compensate, and it does: it documents query, Lucene-syntax filter_query with an example, YYYYMMDD date formats, sort enum values, page indexing/max, and notes that ctx is injected automatically. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Search NYT articles by keyword and optional filters.' This is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_archive, get_top_stories, or get_newswire.

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 description implies keyword search as the use case but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the general article-search tool rather than one of the other retrieval tools.

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