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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: pagination ('one page at a time'), the exact fields per row, exclusion of body content, and a payload-size warning (~720 KB with full: true). Only minor gaps remain, such as what the cluster list looks like alongside paged rows.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its exclusions, then parameters, then the alternative tool. It is information-dense but readable; the stacked parenthetical field list and the trailing size note are slightly cramped, though every clause carries real signal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates row fields, mentions the accompanying cluster list, and flags the size of the full index. Pagination mechanics are covered between the description and the schema's next_offset hint.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining what `full: true` actually returns (search intents, takeaways, variant URLs) rather than just restating the path. `cluster` is tied back to the `clusters` list, adding discoverability the schema lacks.

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 ('List ChangeGamer editorial guides') and immediately scopes it apart from the licensable corpus, which separates it from get_corpus/get_full_corpus siblings. It also discloses the row shape and the cluster list, so an agent knows exactly what kind of object comes back.

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 explicit routing: use this for index/metadata, and 'No body content — fetch bodies with get_article' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also explains when to prefer `full: true` over paging and what `cluster` narrows to, leaving little to inference.

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