list_stories

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the whole burden and does reasonably well: it declares the operation read-only, states that drafts are excluded from results, lists exactly which fields come back, and notes that `total` and paging reflect the server's answer rather than being locally computed. It does not discuss permission/auth scoping beyond "you can read" or result ordering.

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 behavior and the most consequential exclusion (drafts) in the first two sentences, then a compact Args block per parameter. Slightly verbose in restating schema-level bounds, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 three-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, excluded data, returned fields, filtering semantics, and paging behavior, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only result ordering and the auth/visibility implications of "you can read" are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `search` is defined as a filter over story title/summary (a semantic the schema lacks entirely), and `offset` is tied to the server-reported `total` for paging. The limit range/default is restated from the schema rather than adding meaning, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 published stories") plus the scope qualifier that matters most ("Drafts are never listed") and enumerates the returned metadata fields. It does not explicitly name a sibling like get_story or search_datasets as the contrasting choice, so full 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?

The "published only, drafts never listed" constraint and "read-only metadata" framing imply when this tool is appropriate versus a fetch-by-id or search tool. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not-to-use case beyond drafts is given, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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