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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: English and Chinese editions arrive as separate results each tagged with its language, every result carries canonicalUrl, and the domain is an interactive 3D garden rather than a wiki. Only pagination/result-size behavior is left unstated.

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?

Purpose and ordering lead, then result-shape facts, then the citation rule and the domain caveat. Every sentence carries information; the Person @id URL is the only mildly verbose element and it is directly usable.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description closes the remaining agent-facing gaps (language splitting, citation, site nature), leaving only pagination/truncation behavior unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the zh vs zh-CN equivalence). The description adds only indirect value by explaining that language editions are distinct results; it says nothing about the limit parameter, so 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 and resource ('List published notes') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is enough to separate it from get_article and search_articles. It stops short of naming the sibling it should be chosen over, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'newest first' ordering and the 'published notes' scope imply the browsing use case, and 'Cite the canonical URL when quoting' gives one concrete usage rule. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_articles or get_article, and offers no exclusions.

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