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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: payload is lean with no bodies, results are ordered newest-publish-date-first, and status values encode workflow state. It stops short of describing pagination or result caps, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loads the resource and the key 'no bodies' distinction, then the filter semantics, then the fallback tool. Dense but every clause earns its place; the long status list is necessary enumeration, not padding.

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 5-param read tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the definition supplies the essential filter semantics, return shape, and ordering. Only pagination behavior (limit/offset) is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 only 20% (just `site`), so the description must compensate – and it does: it explains every `status` enum value and clarifies that `search` matches title or keyword. `limit` and `offset` remain undocumented, keeping it below a 5.

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 (List) and resource (articles) scoped to a site, and the parenthetical '(lean: no bodies)' immediately distinguishes it from get_article. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative ('Use get_article for the body') and defines the exact selection criteria for each `status` value, including which downstream action each implies (draft needs publish_draft, held needs release_held_article). Nothing 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.