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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds context beyond them: it covers result shape, field omissions (no body), and total-count semantics. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral detail like 'newest first' and 'nothing is created or modified.'

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, front-loaded with the core behavior, and each sentence earns its place. The three paragraphs cleanly separate core listing behavior, usage guidance, and return-value details without redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return envelope ('{ articles, total }'), the fields included, the notable omission (body), and the meaning of total. It also covers ordering, state coverage, and authentication context, making it complete for a read-only list tool.

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 parameters are already fully documented in structured form. The description adds interpretive context for status values (drafts/scheduled included) and response counting, but does not substantially extend the schema's parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('articles'), and clearly scopes it to 'owned by the authenticated account' with ordering and status coverage. It also distinguishes itself from search_articles, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('to find your own work'), why it is the right choice ('only listing that sees unpublished content'), and names the alternative for site-wide search ('use search_articles instead'). It also points to get_article for article bodies, giving clear routing guidance.

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