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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: cost per call ($0.03), payment rail (x402), and the exact output structure. It does not mention rate limits or pagination quirks, but the schema describes max_pages as sequential fetching.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence that conveys the action, resource, output fields, and pricing without excessive padding. The appended '— $0.03/call, x402' is a slight aside but provides useful cost context. It front-loads the core action effectively.

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 scraper with well-documented schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, the structured return fields, and the cost. Since no output schema is present, listing the fields compensates well. Minor details like pagination sequencing are left to the param descriptions, which is acceptable.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (query, max_items, max_pages) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain them. The description itself adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Search'), the target ('Detik news'), and enumerates returned fields (headlines, excerpts, timestamps, sections, images, canonical URLs as structured rows). This differentiates it from sibling scrapers that target different sites, making it unambiguous.

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 clearly implies its use case—Detik news search by keyword—and gives enough context for an agent to select it. It does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions, but the domain specificity makes the intended scenario obvious.

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