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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, and the response also carries a complete tag list with counts — an extra payload an agent would not otherwise anticipate from a tool named list_articles.

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?

A single sentence with the primary action and ordering front-loaded, followed by optional filtering and the secondary tag payload. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the job of hinting at the return shape, and it does flag the accompanying tags-with-counts payload. The remaining gap is whether that tag list is global or scoped by the active filters, a detail that matters for a tool whose primary payload is a list.

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 tag, year, and limit are already documented with types, bounds, and examples. The description only restates that tag and year act as filters and does not clarify interactions, e.g. whether the returned tag counts reflect the year filter. 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 ("List articles"), plus ordering ("newest first") and filter dimensions (tag or year), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not name or contrast with the sibling search_articles, leaving the list-vs-search distinction to inference.

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 phrase "optionally filtered by tag or year" implies the appropriate use case (browsing an unfiltered or lightly-filtered list), which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_articles, no exclusion conditions, and no statement about what happens when filters match nothing.

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