check_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool spends Search API requests (cost) and defines the output concept (three outcomes). It does not mention rate limits, response structure, or whether it is read-only (implied by 'check'). Missing details like error conditions or pagination.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then outcome types, and a cost warning. Efficient and well-ordered, though the cannibalization explanation could be slightly condensed. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core concept and outcome types, which is sufficient for understanding the tool's function. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the return format (e.g., list of articles with status), an agent may not know how to interpret the result. It also does not clarify how depth, region, or project_id affect results beyond schema definitions.

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 coverage is 67%: depth and project_id have descriptions, region does not. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It fails to compensate for the undocumented 'region' parameter, leaving the agent without clarity on its role or required format.

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 tool gets positions of blog articles by their target queries and explains the three possible outcomes (article ranks, cannibalization by another page, or nothing). The verb 'снять' (get) and resource 'позиции статей' are specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_positions, but the cannibalization focus makes it distinct.

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 implies this is for checking article-specific rankings and warns that Search API requests are consumed, which is a cost consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools (e.g., get_positions) or exclude use cases. The cost note is useful but not a full usage guideline.

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