afl_content_text_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context beyond this by detailing the return structure, noting auth is not required, and giving an example request. Such details help the agent understand expected behavior.

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 well-structured and concise: purpose, return format, example, and auth note. Each sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or 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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return shape. It covers purpose, example, and auth. However, it could further clarify pagination semantics (e.g., offset/limit vs page/pageSize) beyond the schema, though the schema already documents this. Overall, it is adequate for a list tool.

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 100%, providing baseline. The description adds value by illustrating how to use referenceExpression and tagExpression in a realistic example, clarifying which parameters are primary for filtering. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool lists text articles (news) with reference/tag filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like afl_content_video_list (video) and afl_content_text_get (single item retrieval) by specifying the resource type and filter options.

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 a clear context for use (listing news articles with filters) and provides a concrete example with AFL/AFLW news. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, which would be needed for a 5.

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