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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: content is Uzbek Latin script and names follow Uzbek spelling conventions, which materially changes how an agent forms the query. It does not mention rate limits or result ordering.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scoping, with no filler. The spelling examples are somewhat list-heavy but serve a concrete disambiguation purpose.

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 simple three-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. The main omission is any statement of what a result contains or how it relates to the sibling news tools.

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 days, limit, and query are fully documented structurally, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the query semantics with Uzbek spelling examples, but adds little beyond the schema for days and limit.

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) and resource (gol24.uz news titles and summaries) with the matching field (keyword). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like person_news or club_news, so it falls short of a 5, but the core 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?

The description gives a usable context cue ('Searches the last N days (default 30)') and spelling guidance, but never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling person_news, club_news, or latest_news. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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