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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: deleted articles are excluded, results are ordered by newest change, and modified_at is explicitly defined as reader-facing last update.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the resource and scope, and every clause carries information. It is a single dense run-on sentence, though, which makes the field enumeration harder to scan than it needs to be.

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, and the description covers scope, ordering, and filter semantics adequately. Minor gap: no explicit note on pagination or result volume for a list that could be large.

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 75% and three of four params are enums the schema already documents. The description mainly restates the filterable fields; its only real addition is clarifying that an author entry matches articles whose byline names it, which is largely echoed in 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list the site's News articles and guides) and pins down scope: excludes deleted, ordered by newest change, and enumerates returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from single-item siblings like get_article and get_article_history.

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 'every one but a deleted one' scoping and the filter list imply when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_article for a single article). The agent must infer the boundary from siblings.

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