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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value on top: the result ordering ('Newest first') and the explicit output boundary (excerpts, never full bodies).

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads purpose and returned fields, folds the three parameters plus the sort order into the tail, and wastes no words. The exclusion of full bodies is stated early where it matters.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by naming the four returned fields. Pagination via limit/offset is left entirely to the schema, which is a small gap but not a blocking one.

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 baseline is 3; the description largely restates q, market and since semantics already documented in the schema. It also omits 'fine-art' from the market list that the schema permits, a minor discrepancy.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list published atticcapital.com articles) plus the exact return fields (title, date, URL, excerpt). The 'Never the full body' clause separates it from the sibling attic_get_article without needing the schema opened.

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?

Gives clear context that this is a discovery/listing operation and a when-not rule ('Never the full body'), which steers the agent to the detail sibling. It stops short of naming attic_get_article explicitly, so the alternative 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.