get_kr_news_semiconductor_summary

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a read operation. The description adds a '5-min cache' behavioral trait, which is useful. Payment details are not behavioral so they don't add to transparency beyond annotations.

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 includes payment information and a docs link, which are not directly about the tool's functionality. While structured, it could be more concise by separating functional from non-functional details.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, sibling differentiation, and cache behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'limit' with min, max, default, and description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'get' with resource 'kr_news_semiconductor_summary' and clearly states it returns articles plus AI analysis. It explicitly differentiates from sibling 'get_kr_news_semiconductor' by noting the added AI layer, providing excellent distinction.

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 indicates when to use this tool (when AI analysis is desired) versus its sibling (raw articles). It does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling, but the context is clear.

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