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.