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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely new behavioral fact that results come back 'newest first' and that non-Korean editions may return translated summaries, but says nothing about pagination or result shape.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant filler. The second sentence earns its place by giving a language/query hint, though it is slightly dense with two ideas packed together.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description covers the core search behavior and the lang nuance but omits result shape, pagination, and how section/limit interact with the search. It is adequate but leaves gaps the agent must infer.

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 75%, and the lang parameter is already thoroughly documented in the schema (edition codes vs AI summary languages). The description reinforces the lang behavior and adds a query tip ('Korean keywords work best'), but adds little beyond what the schema already says; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Full-text search of The Korean Today articles') plus ordering ('newest first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from latest_articles and get_article by inference. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Offers a practical selection hint ('Korean keywords work best for the Korean edition; use lang for another edition or to get translated summaries'), which guides parameter choice. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus latest_articles (browsing) or get_article (fetching one), so usage is only implied.

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