search_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 1-week recency window and that results contain clickable real links, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result completeness/caps beyond what the schema implies.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. Every clause contributes (search input, time window, sort order, link output) with no filler.

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-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, recency scope, and output nature. It omits mention of the language and count parameters, but the schema documents those fully.

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 coverage is 100% with enum values and defaults documented for sort, count, and language, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the sort behavior (latest/relevance) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 precise verb (search) applied to a specific resource (news articles and blogs), and adds scope that constrains the result set to the last week. An agent immediately understands what this tool returns and how it differs from the unrelated utility siblings (greet, calc, geocode, etc.).

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 the use case (text/topic in, recent articles out) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. None of the sibling tools are competing search tools, so there is no alternative to route to, which keeps this from being a critical gap.

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