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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only adds pagination and return field context. It doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or ordering semantics. The source scope (Psychiatry for Teens) is minimal extra context.

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?

The description is a single sentence with the verb 'List' front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and includes essential return-field information with zero waste.

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 list tool with two well-documented parameters and read-only annotation, the description is largely complete—it covers pagination, return fields, and source. It doesn't mention ordering or filtering, but these are not essential for a basic list operation.

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%, with both page and limit having descriptive text. The description only mentions 'paginated' generically, adding no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('list'), resource ('articles from Psychiatry for Teens'), and return fields (title, slug, summary, URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article (single article) and search_articles (filtered search).

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 implies usage for paginated browsing of all articles, which is clear enough for selecting this tool over get_article. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need to search or filter), so it lacks exclusions or alternative references.

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