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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the commercial and operational profile an agent most needs before invoking: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged. It also caps expectations at roughly 20 items and rules out article bodies, so cost, content limits and failure billing are all covered.

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 front-loaded: content and source first, then the scope/price caveats. Every clause carries distinct information and there is no restatement of the name or title.

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 one-parameter, read-only feed tool with an output schema (so return structure need not be explained) and existing annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, its size, its limits, and its price and billing behavior. No material gap remains for correct invocation.

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 single limit parameter is already fully documented including its 1–20 range and default of 10. The description only echoes the ceiling by noting the feed has about 20 items, adding corroboration but no new syntax or behavior beyond the schema; 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?

The description names the specific resource and source: latest Bloomberg Markets headlines from Bloomberg's public RSS feed, and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, link, author, publish time). It is unambiguous about what the tool fetches, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling news tools such as agent_intel_news_radar or agent_intel_web_search_turbo.

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?

"Feed only (about 20 items); article bodies are not returned" gives a clear scope boundary that tells an agent when this tool is insufficient, which implicitly routes full-text needs elsewhere. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating freshness/refresh expectations, so the guidance is clear context rather than explicit when/when-not.

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