List Promoted Help Center Articles

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals significant behavioral traits: it scans article pages via multiple API requests, is uncached, potentially costly, may omit promoted articles on large Help Centers, and flags omissions and page count in the output. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Though longer than typical, every sentence adds essential information: purpose, metadata-only return, cost caveat, uncached behavior, omission flags, locale scope, and modification alternative. The 'COST:' label structures the warning effectively, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description clarifies that only metadata is returned and that omission/page-count flags appear in the output. It covers locale and modification alternatives, but does not enumerate specific metadata fields, which is a minor gap for a list tool.

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, so the empty schema fully defines the input surface. Since there are no parameters, the description cannot add parameter-level semantics; the baseline of 4 for 0-param tools is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('promoted Help Center articles'), further clarifying them as the curated set surfaced at the top of sections. It also distinguishes from siblings by directing to get_article for full content and update_article for modifications.

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 states when to use this tool vs alternatives: use get_article for full content, use update_article with `promoted` to modify promotion status. It also provides practical guidance on cost and repeated calls, advising against frequent invocation on large Help Centers.

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