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

The description discloses non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: filtering by side/lean is based on the source registry rather than the row, causing pages to be shorter than the limit while still returning a cursor. It also states the auth scope requirement and the English fallback for untranslated fields. These add significant context and do not contradict the readOnly/openWorld hints.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add essential details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, pagination, filtering, auth, and language behavior.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, filtering, pagination) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it returns, how paging and filtering behave, auth requirements, and language handling. The agent has enough information to call it correctly without needing to inspect the schema for behavioral nuances.

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 83%, and the description adds extra meaning to side/lean (source registry origin) and lang (English fallback), which goes beyond the schema descriptions. The ckey parameter lacks a schema description, but its purpose is clear from the tool context. Overall, the description enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 title and description clearly state the tool returns every article in a cluster with paging. It references the specific endpoint /v1/stories/{ckey} and distinguishes itself as the paged/filterable variant, which differentiates it from siblings like stories_get and stories_list.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need paged or filtered access to cluster members, as opposed to the non-paged endpoint. It also mentions the required API scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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