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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it states 'Reads only; nothing is created or modified' (reinforcing safety), requires API key, describes returns as { articles, total }, and clarifies that the article body is not included. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded core purposeasi. The first sentence states the exact action and scope; subsequent sentences add alternative guidance and return format without fluff. 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (id, title, status, etc.) and notes the body is excluded alerting the agent to not expect content. Auth, scope, and sibling distinction are all covered. It is fully self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% for both parameters (limit and status) with clear descriptions, including bounds and optionality. The description adds nothing new about parameter semantics; it does hint at pagination via 'total counts all matches' but that's output, not parameter. 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List articles owned by the authenticated account') and immediately clarifies scope (unpublished content included) and ordering (newest first). Explicitly differentiates from the sibling search_articles by stating it is the only listing that sees unpublished content.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context ('Use this to find your own work') and an explicit alternative ('To search across the whole site, use search_articles instead'). This makes the selection unambiguous.

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