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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: public access with no credentials, default/maximum limits, no pagination, 60-second caching, and error behavior for unavailable or invalid feeds. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but every sentence carries information: primary purpose, return contents, access model, limits, caching, error behavior, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core usage and does not waste words.

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 single optional parameter, rich annotations, output schema, and sibling tooling, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: input limits, output contents, safety profile, error cases, and when to choose a different tool. Nothing important 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?

The only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the schema with default, minimum, maximum, and no-pagination semantics. The description repeats the default/maximum behavior without adding substantial new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('recent published archive records'), and a clear use case ('chronological overview without a search term'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_stories and get_story as alternatives for other needs.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this when you want chronology without a search term. It also names search_stories for text matching and get_story for exact IDs, which clearly routes an agent away from this tool when those conditions apply.

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