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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit goes to the added behavior: drafts are included by default and long text fields come back shortened, which is a non-obvious output-shaping trait an agent must know before relying on field content. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the shape of the returned list, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct job in priority order: what it reads, when to call it, the truncation side-effect, then the exclusion plus alternative. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the essential return context (items with their fields, long text shortened) and points at the correct sibling for the excluded record type. A brief note on paging through results would close the last gap, but everything needed to call it correctly is present.

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 86%, so status enum, page/page_size defaults, search matching and collection_type slug semantics are already fully documented in the schema; the description only restates the drafts-included default. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds little parameter-level detail beyond it.

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 ("Read the items in one collection") and immediately disambiguates with concrete examples (posts, dishes, products, listings) plus the scope note that drafts are included. It also names the sibling it is not, list_owned_records, for customer-owned portal records.

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 an explicit trigger: call it before writing new items the user relates to existing ones, with quoted user phrasings ("more like these", "fix my articles") so the agent can pattern-match intent. It also supplies an explicit exclusion with a named alternative for portal records.

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