Find stale articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope detail — only 'published' articles, results ordered oldest first, default 180-day threshold — but says nothing about truncation when the scan limit is hit or what a result record contains.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the filter and ordering come first, then the use case. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, fully-optional read-only tool this is nearly sufficient; annotations and schema cover safety and inputs. The only real gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at the returned fields or whether results are capped by the scan limit.

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%, so all three parameters (days, limit, categoryId) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description only restates the default day threshold and adds the sort order; it adds nothing about how limit interacts with scanning or how categoryId scoping affects results.

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 plus the defining predicate (published, not updated in N days) and the result ordering (oldest first). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like list_articles or search_knowledge_base, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause 'Useful for content audits before a release' implies a usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of list_articles or search_knowledge_base as alternatives, and no prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the filter semantics.

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