search_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful scope context (Korean-language sources, major outlets, topic coverage), but says nothing about result ordering defaults, pagination ceilings, rate limits, or what a returned article contains.

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 English portion is front-loaded and efficient: purpose, then use cases, then coverage. The trailing Korean parenthetical largely duplicates the English rather than adding information, which is the only real waste.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must carry everything, and it does not describe what a result record looks like or any pagination limits for a 4-parameter search tool. It is adequate to pick the tool but thin on operational detail.

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 query, sort, start, and display are already documented in-schema with defaults. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning (e.g., no note that sort defaults to relevance or that display is capped), so baseline 3 applies.

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 latest Korean news articles from major outlets") and scopes the content domains it covers. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like search_webkr and search_blog by naming news outlets, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Perfect for current events, breaking news, and recent developments" gives concrete usage contexts, and the category list (politics, economy, society, international) further narrows intent. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or pointers to sibling tools for non-news queries.

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