pl_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ({pageInfo, content:[...]}) and mentions filtering capabilities, but does not discuss pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any destructive actions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences plus a return structure example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling content tools, the description is moderately complete. It explains the return structure and provides an example, but lacks details on pagination, the 'detail' parameter, and the meaning of 'tagExpression'. It does not reference related tools like pl_content_item for single-item retrieval.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'contentTypes' (articles, video, photos) and 'references' (SDP_FOOTBALL_MATCH/PLAYER/TEAM). However, for parameters like lang, limit, offset, detail, and tagExpression, no additional semantics are provided beyond the schema defaults.

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 it is a list/search tool for content (articles, video, photos) with filtering by content types, entity references, and tags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pl_content_item (which likely retrieves a single item) by focusing on listing and searching multiple items.

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 implies usage for browsing or searching content, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., pl_content_item for a specific item). The example 'Latest articles + videos' provides context but no exclusions or conditions.

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