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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only published articles are returned, includes an important instruction about relying solely on this tool's output and responding when information is missing, and notes JSON-RPC 2.0 support. It lacks details on error behavior or permissions, but these are less critical for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 compact but information-dense, front-loading the purpose and providing necessary usage and constraints in four sentences. Each sentence serves a distinct function, though the JSON-RPC note is a minor implementation detail that could be omitted without losing core value.

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 the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage prerequisites, and a data-fidelity rule. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, with no major gaps in essential context.

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?

At 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that article_uuids are the exact UUIDs obtained from list_articles, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal 'An article UUID' item description. It clarifies the expected source and nature of the parameter values.

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 opens with 'Returns a list of published articles,' a specific verb+resource statement. It also clarifies the input context (exact article uuids) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_articles and search_articles by specifying when it applies.

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 explicitly states 'Use this when you already know the exact article uuids after you have invoked the tool list_articles' and gives an alternative: 'If the uuid is unknown, you can additionally use search_articles first.' This clearly communicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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