List your published articles

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations: it names the required credential (OPEDD_PUB_BEARER or legacy OPEDD_API_KEY), the 8,000-character body truncation, page size 20, and cursor-based pagination. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then credentials, then return shape, then the include_body workflow hook. Dense but organized; a few clauses (page size 20, cursor) duplicate the schema rather than earning their place in prose.

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 enumerating returned fields (titles, descriptions, pricing, sales statistics). Auth, pagination, truncation, and the cross-tool workflow to purchase_license are all covered, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the include_body/id interplay, the limit cap of 20 under include_body, and offset being ignored. The description largely restates these facts (truncation, page size, cursor), adding little semantic value beyond the schema baseline of 3.

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 ('List all licensable articles for the authenticated publisher'), and the publisher-scoped framing distinguishes it from siblings like search_content, lookup_content, and browse_registry. An agent can identify this as the 'my own published content' listing tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: article IDs from this list feed purchase_license, and include_body=true is the way to verify a prior push_content write. It gives clear when-to-use context but never states when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. search_content for discovery), so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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