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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful non-annotation context: results are 'newest first', capped at 50, limited to published stories, and 'Free' (no cost), which helps the agent understand cost and result-shape constraints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and result ordering, followed by the filter dimensions. No wasted clauses.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the key invocation facts: published-only scope, ordering, result cap, cost, and filter types. It could more explicitly describe whether 'up to 50' implies no pagination, but otherwise it is complete enough for correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description restates the same filter semantics with ISO examples, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Browse published stories'), plus ordering and cap, which clearly distinguishes it from write siblings like post_story. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_posts, so an agent might still wonder which to use for keyword-style discovery.

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 implies usage by listing filters and noting 'Free', but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing (e.g. use search_posts for query-based lookup). The context is clear enough for browsing, but the choice between this and search_posts is left implicit.

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