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

The annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's added 'newest first' ordering and the semantic that it lists owned stories carry useful extra information. It adds behavioral ordering context beyond the annotations without repeating them.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, and the when-to-use note is compactly integrated, followed by the parameter guidance.

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?

The tool is simple, has a single optional parameter, rich annotations that establish behavior, and an output schema. The description contains enough context about when and how to call it, including the concrete recovery scenario, for an agent to proceed safely.

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 the description repeats the same limit details already provided in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond the input-schema, which is acceptable for a single, clearly documented optional parameter.

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 the action and scope precisely: 'List stories you own, newest first.' It also clarifies the resource boundary from related tools by mentioning recovery after losing story_id, so an agent can distinguish it from manga.continue_story and manga.list_panels without opening schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it: 'Call this when you lost story_id after context compaction so you can resume with manga.continue_story.' This provides clear context and names the continuation tool, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use siblings.

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