guardian_search_articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of required API key/auth, paging behavior for the page_size parameter, rate limits, or what the response contains—context that would matter for an open-world external search.

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 wasted words, so it is concise. However, the brevity is achieved by omitting essential content rather than by efficient phrasing, so it sits at minimum viable rather than strong.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should carry far more weight than one sentence. Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety story, but the caller still lacks query-shaping details, authentication notes, and result-format expectations.

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% across six parameters (q, api_key, section, to_date, from_date, page_size), and the description explains none of them. With no schema text and no description text, an agent gets no indication of date formats, section identifier expectations, default/max page_size, or how api_key is supplied.

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 clear verb and resource ("Search for articles on The Guardian"). An agent can tell this is a search endpoint, but the description never distinguishes it from sibling tools like guardian_get_article, guardian_get_sections, or guardian_get_tags, so routing between them requires external inference.

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 guidance on when to use this versus guardian_get_article (fetch by ID) or the section/tag lookup tools, and no mention of the conditions that shape a query (e.g., date range vs. section filtering). The agent is left to guess from sibling names alone.

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