get_article_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the lightweight nature of the operation, the cost implications, and the purpose (counting/batch operations). However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by continuation parameter) or error conditions.

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?

The description is extremely efficient - three sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, use cases, and cost information. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool returns (IDs only, not full content) and its use cases. It could be more complete by mentioning the return format (e.g., list of IDs) or pagination details, but the cost information and lightweight nature are valuable additions.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Lightweight fetch'), resource ('article IDs from a stream'), and scope ('without full content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_articles' (which presumably fetches full content) by emphasizing lightweight ID-only retrieval.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Useful for counting or batch operations') and provides cost information ('Costs 1 Zone 1 request'), which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives. It clearly differentiates from content-heavy operations.

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