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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that results are ordered newest-to-oldest, contain summaries/URLs, exclude full bodies, and are filterable—valuable behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior and the alternative are front-loaded, and each clause adds value—ordering, content shape, filtering, and the get_article pointer.

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 list tool with rich annotations and a simple schema, the description covers ordering, content shape, filtering, and how to proceed to full content. It omits details like response envelope or error cases, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the safety hints.

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 67% (4 of 6 params have descriptions). The description reinforces the filtering params (type, sport, tag) but adds nothing about pagination (page, limit), which are only partially documented in the schema. It does not fully compensate for the missing descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it lists published notes from newest to oldest, includes summary and URL but not the full body, and can be filtered by type, sport, or tag. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from get_article, which retrieves full articles.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use get_article with the returned slug to read a full note, providing a direct alternative. This makes the usage context unambiguous, though it doesn't cover other siblings (which are for different resource types, so not needed).

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