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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint. The description goes beyond that by noting the auth requirement, the 'sold-once' scoping, and the returned ranking/impression data. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is compact and efficiently structured: first the action, then the return shape and purpose, then the prerequisite API key. Every sentence earns its place and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the key returned dataset (article_id, ranking queries, positions, impressions) and explains how to proceed with it. The two-parameter input is simple, the auth requirement is called out, and the tool is fully actionable.

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 the schema already documents site_id and limit clearly. The description adds little about parameter semantics beyond contextualizing site_id as a catalog site, which matches the expected baseline.

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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('sold-once existing articles...on one catalog site'), and it identifies the key output (article_id) that feeds later steps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_order, get_order_status, and list_ai_visibility_projects.

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 the workflow: list articles, choose a page, then pass article_id to create_order with format=lien_insere. It also notes the required API key. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or reference alternative list tools, but the workflow context is sufficient for correct selection.

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