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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it emphasizes the data is 'unfiltered and unclassified' and explains the coverage of non-ticker-filtered feeds. While it doesn't discuss rate limits or pagination, for a read-only feed with strong annotations, this is solid coverage.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The first defines the purpose, the second gives usage differentiation, and the third gives practical advice. Every word earns its place, front-loaded with the primary function.

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 simple read-only feed retrieval tool with 0 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it differs from a sibling, and how to use the data ('Match the headlines against your own market list'). No significant gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (limit, category, hours_back) already well-documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is fine given the schema's completeness, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Recent headlines across crypto, finance and sports RSS feeds, unfiltered and unclassified.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_recent_news by noting it does not filter by asset ticker, making its scope and purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly names an alternative ('Unlike get_recent_news') and explains when to use this tool instead, including a concrete use case ('it also covers the sports, macro and event markets that make up most of a HIP-4 board'). This directly tells the agent when to choose this over similar tools.

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