suggest_article_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'transparent heuristics' but does not explain what behavior this implies, whether the operation is read-only, what ranking criteria are used, or how results are ordered.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and purpose, though brevity comes at the cost of parameter and usage detail.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confidently determine output behavior, parameter semantics, or how this tool differs from closely related proposal tools.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for 'limit' or 'include_published'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify defaults, allowed ranges, or what 'include_published' actually includes.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rank') with a clear resource ('tracker entries') and outcome ('possible Clearon article candidates'). It is understandable and distinguishable from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with propose_tracker_update.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as propose_tracker_update or list_watch_items. The phrase 'using transparent heuristics' hints at intent but does not explain when an agent should choose this over sibling tools.

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