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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — results are Vietnamese-language and ordered newest first — but says nothing about result count defaults, truncation at the limit cap, or matching semantics for the keyword.

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 tight sentence with the sort-order and language facts front-loaded; every clause carries information and there is no boilerplate.

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 simple no-required-param read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly adequate, but the absence of any limit/size guidance and keyword-match semantics leaves gaps that the schema alone does not resolve.

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% for both parameters. The description only glosses the query parameter as a "keyword" filter and never mentions the limit parameter at all, so an agent must read the raw schema constraints (1–50) to understand result sizing.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List EcoCheck articles") plus useful qualifiers: content language (Vietnamese) and sort order (newest first). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_article (single-item fetch) or search_ecocheck (broader search), which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

"Optionally filtered by keyword" implies when to supply the query parameter, but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over search_ecocheck or get_article, and no guidance on default page size or how to page through results.

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