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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the returned list is editorial recommendation rather than view-count popularity and has no ranking value, which is not captured by annotations alone. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but those are not essential here.

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?

Three tightly written sentences front-load the use case, then the semantic distinction, alternative tool, and prerequisite. Every sentence carries useful routing or clarification information.

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 read-only list operation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, selection conditions, alternative tool, and section-code prerequisite. Return values are handled by the output schema, leaving no critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both section_cd and page_size are already documented. The description repeats the list_sections check for section_cd but does not add syntax, constraints, or page_size behavior beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: retrieving editorially recommended/read-worthy articles for a given section. It explicitly distinguishes itself from popularity-based siblings by naming list_popular_news, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('특정 분야... 물을 때 사용합니다'), when-not-to-use ('많이 본/핫한/인기' → list_popular_news), and a prerequisite for obtaining the section code via list_sections. The routing conditions are fully specified.

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