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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safely, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains the two view modes, that 'detail' requires article_id, and that it returns full body content. It doesn't discuss rate limits or pagination behavior, but for a read tool with annotations this is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then view modes, then a structured args list. It's a bit long but every line earns its place given the low schema coverage. No wasted prose.

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?

For an 8-param read tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential params and the two operation modes. The main missing piece is the status enum values and the user_intent param, but overall it gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 very low (13%), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains brand_id, view values with meanings, article_id requirement, status filter, standalone_only's effect, and limit/offset defaults and range. It omits user_intent and doesn't define status enum values (which the schema does via enum), leaving a small gap.

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 (Read) and resource (brand articles authored inside Trakkr), and adds the distinguishing trait that these are long-form pieces from the in-app editor with AI-visibility scoring. It doesn't explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like get_content_ideas or generate_article, but the resource is specific enough to disambiguate.

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 clear use context: 'surface what's been published and pull body content for review or syndication', and the view modes are explained with their conditions. It doesn't state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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