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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: results are ordered newest first and each result carries title, date, summary and URL. It stops short of covering zero-result behavior or matching semantics (substring vs. word match).

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, both front-loaded with the highest-value information: what is searched first, then what comes back. The Korean keyword example is short and directly actionable, with no 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 no output schema, the description covers resource scope, search fields, ordering and return shape, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results or match semantics.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the 50-character truncation and the 1-20 limit range. The description reinforces the query parameter with a practical hint about Korean keywords and typical keyword shapes, but says nothing about limit, so it adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 and resource (search published Festival Times articles) and narrows the search surface to title or summary, which distinguishes it from the sibling search tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_festivals or latest_news, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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 usage tip (use Korean keywords, e.g. a festival or town name) but gives no guidance on when to choose this over search_festivals or latest_news, and no exclusions or preconditions. Usage is implied by the resource type rather than stated.

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