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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals a key behavioral nuance: hidden drafts are only included for staff callers, while public callers see only published articles. This role-dependent visibility is not captured in annotations and adds meaningful context for expected results.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core action and URL structure, then details filters and access rules. Every sentence carries information without redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, filtering semantics, and a critical visibility rule. It does not mention response structure or pagination, but those are either implicit in a list endpoint or already encoded in the schema defaults and bounds.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how slug and language combine to 'find one specific page's translations', framing the parameters as a pair rather than just individual filters. It also reinforces the language code and slug examples from the schema, giving an agent a clearer mental model of their combined usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: browsing CMS articles under a specific URL pattern, with filtering by language and slug. The verb 'browse' plus the URL structure and filter details make it unambiguous, and it is implicitly distinguished from siblings like article_get by focusing on listing translations rather than fetching a single article.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to browse or filter articles, especially to find translations of a specific page via language/slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well-defined enough for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools like article_get or article_titles.

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