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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: a 5-min cache, pricing/payment requirements, and the output structure including ai_analysis fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by pricing, payment, and return details. It is longer than necessary, but each section (payment, cache, output) serves a clear purpose. The structure with headers improves scannability.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the main elements: input parameter, output fields (results[] and ai_analysis with subfields), cache behavior, and cost. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail; the description provides sufficient context for invocation.

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%, with the schema already documenting the 'limit' parameter (type, default, min/max). The description repeats this information ('Number of articles to analyze (1-10, default 5)') without adding new semantic meaning, so the schema carries the burden.

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 states the tool's function: 'Korean semiconductor news plus AI market synthesis.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_kr_news_semiconductor by explicitly noting it adds an AI layer (sentiment, themes, market signal). This is a specific verb+resource+scope with sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides clear context by referencing its sibling tool get_kr_news_semiconductor and explaining the added value, implying when to choose this version over the simpler one. It also includes crucial payment instructions and cache behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or describe alternative scenarios.

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