Car blog articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait not in annotations: results are returned 'Newest first'. It does not describe pagination behavior (e.g., whether a total count is returned), which is a modest gap for a list tool.

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, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the follow-up read tool as the final clause. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 list/search tool with fully documented parameters, four safety annotations and no output schema requirement, the description covers what it does, what it returns in what order, and what to call next. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% – page, limit, query and category all carry their own descriptions including Persian example terms and the enum meanings. The description's mention of content types loosely maps to the category enum but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already says. 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 pair and resource ('Search or list articles') and scopes it to the Karnameh car magazine blog, naming the content it covers (news, reviews, maintenance, laws). It also distinguishes itself from its sibling kn_article by positioning itself as the discovery step.

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 clear context: 'Use to find a review, a buying guide or a rule explanation', and explicitly routes the agent to kn_article(id) as the follow-up read step. It stops short of exclusion criteria (e.g., when to prefer kn_specs_search or kn_cars instead), but the when-to-use condition is concrete.

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