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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description only needs to add ordering/scope context. It does contribute that results are ordered by recency, but omits result count behavior, pagination limits, and what an article record contains.

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 wording. It could carry slightly more routing information without becoming bloated, but nothing here is redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly enough, but the agent still cannot tell how many articles to expect, how to widen the search, or what fields come back. A brief note on ordering scope and the search_dia alternative would close the gap.

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?

The phrase filter is reflected as 'query', matching the one documented parameter, but the description says nothing about 'limit' — its purpose, default of 10, or ceiling of 20 — so with 50% schema coverage half the parameters rely purely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds meaning for one parameter and nothing for the other.

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 names a specific resource (Digital in Asia articles) and a specific selection criterion (most recent, optionally phrase-filtered), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_dia, which likely overlaps heavily on the phrase-filter path.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of search_dia as the alternative for broader or relevance-ranked searching. 'Optionally filtered by a phrase' hints at usage but leaves the agent to infer that this is the recency-oriented variant.

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