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

Read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior is already declared by annotations, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the content-group scoping constraint, but says nothing about ordering, result size, or how the opaque cursor interacts across pages beyond what the schema already notes.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the scoping requirement stated first. The first line ('List stories') largely duplicates the tool title, so there is minor redundancy, but nothing is padded out.

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 simple filtered-list tool with read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. With no output schema, however, it offers no hint about the return shape (array of stories, pagination semantics), which an agent would need to infer.

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 limit, cursor, status, and contentGroupId are all already documented in the schema — including the rich 'partial' status explanation. The description's status example adds only marginal value on top, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List stories for a content group') and names the required scoping parameter, so an agent knows it returns a collection of stories rather than a single one. It does not explicitly contrast itself with listPosts or getStory, but the distinct resource makes the intent clear.

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 gives one conditional usage hint ('Filter by status if you only need a subset, e.g. status=scheduled'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus getStory, listPosts, or listContentGroups, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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