Magazine topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them — results include article counts, are ordered largest-first, and sub-categories carry their parent slug — but says nothing about pagination or how the limit interacts with filtering.

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, both earning their place: the first states content and ordering, the second routes to the consuming tool. Scope and result shape are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must sketch the return shape, and it does: topic names with article counts, ordered largest-first, with parent slugs on sub-categories. It lacks only edge-case behavior (empty results, total counts, pagination), which keeps it from a 5.

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 three parameters are already fully documented in the schema and the baseline applies. The description reinforces `kind` by naming both category and tag in prose and implies ordering via "biggest first", but adds no syntax or filtering nuance beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a scoped resource ("Faradars Magazine categories or tags") and even the sort order ("biggest first"). The "Magazine" qualifier implicitly separates it from the course-side fr_categories sibling, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 the use case: "Use to find the `category` or `tag` slug for fr_articles", which names the downstream consumer and the exact field it feeds. It gives no exclusion guidance (e.g., when to use fr_categories instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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