news_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains key behaviors: multi-search by combining name with current and previous companies, default 5-year range, priority on 11 major dailies, and filtering for only negative-keyword-matched articles. However, it does not detail return structure or error handling, which would be useful.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (usage, rule, args) and uses bullet points and labels. It is front-loaded with purpose. While slightly long, it efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers usage context, search behavior, and all parameters. It does not mention pagination or error cases, but for a search tool with output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates fully by listing each parameter with examples and explanations (e.g., name: '김용관', company: '삼성전자', companies: 'LG전자,LX인터내셔널'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for negative news about a person, specifically for director/auditor candidates (횡령, 배임, 기소). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all AGM or proxy-related, by being a dedicated news search tool.

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 provides explicit usage context: it should be used only after 'agm_personnel_xml' execution to check negative news risk for a specific candidate, and not called alone. It also specifies the search rule (career-based multi-search, time range, and article filtering).

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