sloanreview_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: the index is paginated, sitemap-backed, reflects currently published URLs, and body retrieval depends on an archived public snapshot. It does not mention response-field details or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation the disclosed traits are substantial.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and does not waste words. The first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second sentence gives the crucial downstream workflow and archive caveat.

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 a simple two-parameter paginated list, the description is largely complete: it names the output as article URLs, states pagination, and connects to the body-content sibling. With no output schema and no annotations, it could still be more explicit about the exact item shape and pagination metadata, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents page and page_size with defaults and ranges. The description only alludes to pagination and does not add parameter-level detail, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List MIT Sloan Management Review article URLs.' It clearly defines the tool's scope as a paginated, sitemap-backed index of all currently published article URLs. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling sloanreview_article tool by explaining that body content is requested separately.

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 description gives clear guidance to use this tool for listing URLs and then hand an item's URL to sloanreview_article for body content, which is an explicit alternative. It does not address other siblings like sloanreview_headlines, sloanreview_categories, or sloanreview_topic, and it references 'sloanreview-article' with a hyphen rather than the exact sibling name 'sloanreview_article'.

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