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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: drafts are excluded from results, premium article bodies are neither searched nor returned, and results carry canonical citation links. It stops short of describing paging or ordering behavior, which the schema partly covers.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion rules follow immediately, so an agent gets the essentials in the first clause.

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?

For a five-parameter search with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers scope, exclusions, and the shape of the returned citation links. It would be fully complete only if it clarified ordering, pagination intent, or routing against sibling search/lookup tools.

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% and all five parameters (lang, limit, offset, query, category) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 published JetAtlas articles') plus the return characteristic (canonical citation links). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from similar lookup siblings such as get_article or search_knowledge.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statements: drafts are out of scope and premium bodies are never returned, which tells the agent what it cannot retrieve. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance, e.g. when to prefer get_article for a known ID or search_knowledge for non-article content.

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