List career guide topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it takes no parameters, reflects the live published corpus (a freshness guarantee, not a cached snapshot), and enumerates what the response contains (categories, tags, per-item article counts and URLs, plus a total). It stops short of stating pagination or result-size limits, so not a full 5.

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 what is returned, then the routing rule, then the no-parameter/freshness note. Every sentence carries information, but the return-value enumeration partially duplicates the output schema, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still names the resource, the freshness behavior, the absence of parameters, and the sibling handoff. Nothing an agent needs in order 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?

The tool has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4; the description correctly and explicitly confirms 'It takes no parameters', removing any doubt that filtering arguments might exist.

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 (lists) and resource (blog categories, most-used tags, counts, URLs, total article count) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling that does something similar but different: 'It does not retrieve articles for a specific question; knowledge_search does that.' An agent can distinguish it from knowledge_search without opening either 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?

Gives both the when ('the factual source for questions about the blog's topics or overall coverage') and the when-not, naming the alternative tool that handles the excluded case (article retrieval for a specific question goes to knowledge_search). Nothing is left to inference.

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