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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds no contradicting side effects. It only says 'Returns...', so it does not add much behavioral context beyond 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 contain the full purpose, kind taxonomy, and output fields without extraneous detail. The structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description lists returned fields, which helps despite no output schema, and explains kind values. It omits important context like limit semantics, default ordering, and how filters combine, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

q is described as a substring match, and kind's enum values are partially explained in the main description, but limit has no description and its semantics must be guessed. Schema coverage is low, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented limit.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists published long-form pages, enumerates the five kinds with examples, and specifies returned fields. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_article or search.

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?

The description explains what is listed and the kinds, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly tell when to prefer it over search or get_article, nor mention filtering behavior beyond the schema.

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