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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond them by specifying what is returned ('titles and status, not their body'), though it omits pagination behavior despite a page param.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the purpose is front-loaded and the filtering hints follow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape (titles and status, not body). It is nearly complete for a list tool, though it omits pagination semantics for the page parameter.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for status and category_slug, but page and other parameters remain undocumented in the description, leaving gaps. Baseline 3 for partial compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the articles of a portal') and clarifies the scope (titles and status, not their body), which implicitly separates it from get_article. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It explains how to narrow results (pass status for drafts/published, category_slug to stay within a category), which gives implied guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over list_guides, list_categories, or get_article, and provides no exclusions.

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