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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, optional inclusive date bounds, paging, and section-specific dating rules.

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 definition is three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a concrete use case. The section-dating caveat is non-obvious and earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with five fully described parameters and no output schema, this covers scope, ordering, paging, and date semantics well. The main remaining gap is explicit routing versus siblings like search, latest, or the edition-specific getters.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that VI Update articles are dated by the displayed article date while Good Day and Straight Record are dated by publication date.

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 names the resource ('Published items of one publication'), the date-range filter, ordering ('newest first'), and paging, and it states the browsing use case. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as search, latest, or fetch, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives clear usage context: browsing what a publication ran in a week, month, or year. It does not say when not to use this tool or name alternatives like search or latest, so exclusions are absent.

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