search_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure and per_page bounds (1-100), but says nothing about pagination depth limits, rate limits, auth needs, or whether the search is read-only and side-effect-free—information an agent would want for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by a compact per-argument list and a one-line return summary. Every line carries meaning with minimal waste; only minor trimming would be possible.

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 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers every parameter, the default behaviors (query empty, json format), and the return payload. Even though an output schema exists, the summary of returned fields aids comprehension without redundancy.

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 so fully: each of the 9 parameters is documented with meaning, format (ISO-8601 with an example for after/before), bounds (per_page 1-100), defaults, and cross-references to lookup tools for the ID-based filters.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (Search) and resource (Local News Matters articles), which distinguishes it from get_article and get_article_by_slug. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_recent_articles, even though its own guidance ('leave empty to browse the most recent articles') overlaps that tool's apparent purpose.

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?

Usage is implied via parameter hints ('see list_categories', 'see list_tags', 'see list_authors') that route the agent to sibling lookup tools. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_recent_articles, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions for the search-vs-browse decision.

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