legion_list_stories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so partly: 'Reads only' declares the safety profile, and result ordering plus returned fields are disclosed. It does not cover pagination behavior or what happens when the scan limit is hit, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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?

Returned fields are front-loaded in one line, followed by a compact phase legend and a read-only note. The closing 'Tip' promoting earning_opportunities is the only sentence that does not earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the fields each proposal carries, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Combined with the fully documented schema, only ordering/pagination edge behavior 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 coverage is 100%, so era, limit and phase are already documented; that sets the baseline at 3. The phase gloss ('expired – nobody concluded in time; can no longer pay') adds interpretive nuance beyond the enum names, but nothing is said about era or limit in the description itself.

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 states the resource (proposals/stories), the ordering (newest first) and the payload (phase, tally, inscription target), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with legion_get_story or legion_my_position, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Reads only' plus the phase filter make it obvious this is the browsing entry point, but there is no statement of when to pick it over legion_get_story. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities is a cross-sell, not usage guidance for this tool.

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