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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (Markdown table with id, title, locale, slug, published) and the cursor-based pagination contract, which the annotations do not convey.

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: the first front-loads the operation and filters, the second covers output and pagination. No filler or 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description adds a helpful summary of the tabular result and pagination. It is complete for invocation; only the absence of routing guidance to sibling fetch tools keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is high (83%), so the schema already documents slug, blogId, locale, cursor and published. The description restates four of those filters and adds no format or syntax detail (e.g. how 'published' interacts with locale), and omits limit entirely. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Polyblog articles) and enumerates the filter dimensions. It is clearly distinct from get_article and list_article_translations, but it never names an alternative to disambiguate when a single-article fetch is preferable.

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?

Usage is implied: filters are optional, and the pagination instruction ('Use the returned cursor to page through results') gives a concrete follow-up action. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_article or list_article_translations, and no statement of what happens with zero filters.

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