List 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 one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Returns compact rows' — signaling lean payloads, but says nothing about pagination behavior, total counts, ordering, or how filters combine (AND vs OR).

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 short sentences, zero filler, filters front-loaded and the return-shape note trailing. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only, fully-documented, zero-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The small remaining gap is sort order and how multiple filters compose, which an agent may need to predict results.

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 every parameter is already documented, including enum semantics for accessibility and the categoryId cross-reference. The description only restates the filter names and loosely maps 'visibility' to the accessibility parameter; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('articles') and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like search_knowledge_base or find_stale_articles, which also surface articles.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over search_knowledge_base (keyword/relevance retrieval) or find_stale_articles (a specialized subset). The filter list implies a browsing use case, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.

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