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 fully covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond the annotations: articles are point-in-time snapshots tied to fact changes, which shapes how results should be interpreted. It omits pagination/limit and return-shape behavior, keeping it below 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the resource definition, then the disambiguation hint. Zero waste and no repetition of structured fields.

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 read-only, no-output-schema search tool the core semantics and the sibling routing are covered, but the description leaves the 'limit' cap and the 'category' enum values unexplained, and says nothing about result ordering or shape. Adequate but with clear gaps given only 33% schema coverage.

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 only 33% (only 'query' carries a description noting that empty means all-in-latest-order). The description says nothing about any of the three parameters, leaving 'limit' and the 'category' enum undocumented in both places. With coverage below 50%, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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+resource ('기사를 찾습니다' – finds articles) and then defines the resource conceptually as 'a record of when a fact's value changed.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_facts, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative with a selecting condition: 'if you need the current value, use search_facts.' This tells the agent when NOT to use search_articles, but it never states positively when this tool is the right choice (e.g., 'use when you need historical snapshots').

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