Most read articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the returned fields (id, title, url and view/comment/like counts) and result ordering, but says nothing about result caps beyond the schema or what happens when no articles match.

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 short sentences with the core action and sort order front-loaded and the cross-reference second. No filler, though the sentence break between behavior and drill-down could be marginally tighter.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and ordering. For a three-parameter, default-laden read tool this is nearly enough; only edge behavior (empty results, max result ceiling) is 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 100% with enums on period and section, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes the period values ('week, month, season or year') and ordering; it adds nothing about section values or how limit interacts with total results. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the most viewed Gamefa articles') plus the supported time windows and the sort order ('most viewed first'). That cleanly separates it from recency-oriented siblings like gf_latest_articles, though it never names gf_latest_articles or gf_search_articles explicitly to draw the contrast.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('Use for "what is trending at Gamefa"') and routes follow-up work to a named sibling ('read one with gf_article'). It does not state when to prefer gf_latest_articles or gf_search_articles instead, so the exclusion side is only implicit.

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