OnPress — Korean internet newspaper builder

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 fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is limited to what the payload contains (key points, FAQ, full-post link), which is useful but modest given no output schema. It says nothing about failure behavior for invalid slugs or whether results are cached.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the resource identity plus return contents are front-loaded before the identifier source. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming key points, FAQ, and the full-post link. The main remaining gap is what happens when the slug is unknown or invalid, but that is minor for a simple lookup.

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% and the single slug parameter is documented in the schema with format examples. The description echoes the same slug/URL duality and adds only the provenance hint that the slug comes from search_guides. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (one OnPress guide) and enumerates what it returns: key points, FAQ, and the link to the full post. It also names the sibling search_guides as the source of the identifier, which separates discovery from single-item retrieval. It stops short of an explicit 'fetch one guide' verb phrasing, but the purpose is 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?

"by the slug or URL from search_guides" establishes the workflow: call search_guides first, then use this tool on a chosen result. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not state exclusions (e.g., that it cannot list or search, and that search_guides must be used for discovery).

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the important caveats: prices are monthly in KRW and quoted before VAT, and the response comes back in Korean. Those are exactly the details that prevent misinterpretation of the returned numbers. It does not describe breadth of the plan list or any rate/limit behavior, so not a 5.

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 that identifies the product, then the returned fields, then the language caveat in six words. Nothing wasted and nothing structural missing.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so field by field with currency and tax basis clarified. Complete enough to call blind; only the absence of any hint about list size or ordering keeps it at 4.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter talk and instead spends its words on the shape of the result, which is the right allocation.

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 the exact resource (OnPress subscription plans) and enumerates the returned fields — name, tagline, monthly price in KRW before VAT, first-year price, features — so an agent knows precisely what it gets. No sibling overlap exists among get_guide/how_to_start/list_templates/search_guides, but the description never says so explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for pricing/plan questions, but there is no explicit trigger, no prerequisite, and no statement about when a sibling such as get_guide would be the better choice. Adequate but leaves inference to the caller.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by identifying the returned content as steps plus signup, showroom, and free-check URLs, though it could say more about the response format.

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 definition is two compact sentences with no waste, and the main purpose and step summary are front-loaded. The usage phrase is appended efficiently and earns its place by clarifying intent.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and strong read-only/idempotent annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to know this is an informational guide tool. It also mentions the content it returns, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the scoring rules. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not create confusion about inputs.

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 states a specific how-to purpose: opening a Korean internet newspaper with OnPress, and lists the concrete steps (sign up, name the paper, connect sources, register, go public). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling guide tools such as get_guide or search_guides, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: use for "인터넷신문 어떻게 만들어?". That tells the agent the right context, but it does not state when not to use it or name the sibling alternatives for broader or different guide searches.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of each returned item (one-line description, demo paper, signup link), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the payload. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and implicitly what it does. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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 the specific resource (newspaper site templates offered by OnPress) and enumerates what each entry carries: a one-line description, a live demo, and a signup link. The purpose is clear without opening the schema, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' and relies on the tool name to supply it.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the browsing/discovery step for site templates. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the siblings (get_guide, get_plans, how_to_start, search_guides) or when a template lookup is preferable to those.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is free. The description adds useful context beyond that: it lists the returned fields (title, date, description, key points, URL) and the empty-query fallback of newest-first ordering. It does not say how results are ranked when a query is given, which would be the last piece.

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 verb and domain, then return shape and the empty-query behavior. The Korean parenthetical is dense but earns its place by supplying search vocabulary; nothing is filler.

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 two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers topic, return fields and the no-query case. It stops short of stating relevance ordering for queried searches or whether the corpus is Korean-only, which is the remaining 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema (limit 1-10 default 5; query max 200 chars, first 50 used). The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: query is Korean keywords and omitting it returns the newest guides, clarifying the optionality semantically.

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 (Search) plus a precisely scoped resource (OnPress blog guides on starting/running a Korean internet newspaper), including topic vocabulary that makes the domain unmistakable. This naturally separates it from the retrieval sibling get_guide, which fetches one guide rather than searching many.

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?

"Without a query, the newest guides" tells the agent what an empty query does, but that is behavioral, not usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_guide, or what result ordering applies when a query is supplied, so the agent must infer the routing.

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