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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds the genuinely useful extras: pagination size (50), the cursor round-trip pattern, and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). It stops short of describing rate limits or ordering guarantees beyond 'newest first'.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then pagination and auth. Slight redundancy – 'newest first' appears twice in the first two sentences – but no dead weight elsewhere.

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 paginated read-only list tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: item fields, pagination mechanics, status filtering, and auth. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description restates the 50-item page limit and the cursor round-trip but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (e.g., default status vs enum semantics are only in the schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('your own stories') with scope ('newest first') and the returned fields. Clearly separable from siblings like medium_get_story, medium_list_publications and medium_list_responses.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: 'Filter by status to find drafts or scheduled stories' and notes the story_id feeds other tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternate list tools, but the use case is unambiguous.

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