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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful ordering ('newest change first') and a cost signal ('Free'), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default result count, or return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with little waste, moving from resource to ordering to filters. The trailing 'Free.' is slightly cryptic, but the overall structure is efficient for an agent.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core resource, ordering, and filters. It is not fully complete because it omits limit/pagination behavior and does not describe what each returned article contains.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It meaningfully maps 'optionally matching words' to query, 'in one collection' to collection, and 'only published / only drafts' to status, but it completely omits the limit parameter and does not explain collection IDs or query formatting.

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 identifies the resource (articles), ordering (newest change first), and supported filters (words, collection, status), making it clear this is a list/search operation. It is not as explicit as naming the verb itself, but the title supplies 'List or search articles' and the plural resource distinguishes it from get_article.

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 when the filters should be used: optional matching words, one collection, or published/draft status. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of help_center_get_article or other siblings, so usage is only implied.

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