Search BBC and Sky news

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it searches recent RSS stories, returns 'ranked and attributed matches,' and covers multiple news sources. No contradictions with the annotations are present.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, names the sources, describes the query type, and states the output nature all in one pass.

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 a rich input schema, full parameter documentation, and an output schema present, this description is complete enough. It communicates the domain, freshness, output format, and ranking behavior, while the schema and annotations cover the remaining operational details.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents every parameter, including defaults, constraints, and meanings. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying topical search, but it doesn't need to because the schema carries that weight.

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 a specific action ('Search'), the resource ('BBC News and Sky News RSS stories'), and the intended use case ('for a specific person, place, organisation, or event'). It also describes the output as 'ranked and attributed matches,' making it distinct from the sibling tools, which seem to summarize feeds or list them rather than perform targeted searches.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need recent news stories about a specific topic or entity. It doesn't explicitly mention the sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the phrasing implies a search-oriented use case that is different from listing or summarizing feeds.

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