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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world access, so the description's job is the extras: it discloses list ordering ('newest first') and cursor-based pagination, which the annotations do not. It omits the reordering side effect of hide_deprioritized and the sub_category vs. date-window incompatibility, which remain only in the schema.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the action and scope; the sibling pointer comes last where it is most useful. 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 an output schema present, the description does not need to describe return values, yet it still enumerates them briefly and covers the main browse dimensions. Coverage of the less common filters (player, hero_type, exclude_sport) is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full schema descriptions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names several filter facets but adds no format or dependency guidance beyond the schema, and doesn't mention player, hero_type, exclude_sport or hide_deprioritized at all.

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 ('Get a page of FanDuel Research articles'), enumerates the content types (predictions, picks, prop bets, guides) and the fields returned, and distinguishes itself from fanduel_research_article by scoping itself to article listing rather than body retrieval.

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?

Explicitly says to browse by sport, sub_category, team, author or date window and to page with cursor, and names the sibling (fanduel_research_article) for reading a body. It gives positive routing but no explicit exclusions or prerequisites for filter combinations.

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