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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the JSON paginated response, the content_body inclusion rules per order type, the two access modes (retrieval_per_article vs metered_per_call), and the auth requirement (OPEDD_ACCESS_KEY). This is substantially more than a generic list description.

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 information-dense with no filler. It opens with purpose, then content contract, then parameter usage, auth, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to extract key decision points.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers what the tool returns, auth requirements, pagination, content-access rules, and the appropriate alternative for bulk use. The only omitted detail is exact response field names, but the schema already references data.pagination.next_cursor, so no critical gap remains.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful usage semantics for `since` (delta-feed polling) and `cursor` (pagination across pages), and implicitly clarifies `limit` by contrasting with stream_feed_ndjson's 1000-article cap.

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 specific action ('List articles'), a specific resource ('a buyer's licensed catalog'), and the endpoint ('GET /enterprise-license'). It also distinguishes the content-access modes, making it clear this is the feed-level listing tool versus get_content or stream_feed_ndjson.

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 explains when to use `since` for delta-feed polling, when to use `cursor` for pagination, and tells the agent to use stream_feed_ndjson instead for larger bulk pulls ('up to 1000 articles per call vs 200 here'). This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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