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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are sorted newest-first and each item is a heavy payload, which justifies small page sizes. It omits rate limits and the max limit/default of 100.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the one operational constraint that matters. No 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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage across five params, the description covers ordering, payload weight, and pagination but leaves search filtering and the required projectId/siteId requirements unexplained.

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 0% for five parameters, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully explains limit and offset (use a small limit, page with offset) but says nothing about search, projectId, or siteId, leaving the actual filtering capability undocumented.

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 a website's articles'), plus ordering ('newest first') and the returned fields ('state and publication'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_article or list_article_keywords, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 operational advice on how to call it ('pass a small limit such as 10 and page with offset'), which implies the usage pattern, but never states when to choose this over get_article, search_article_keywords, or other list tools.

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