feedmyagent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (technology, compliance, security news) but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, or limitation on recency. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not insightful.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function and optional filters without any fluff. Every word contributes to clarity, and it avoids unnecessary details. This is an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return structure, but the description omits crucial usage context relative to the sibling query_security_feed. It also does not explain what 'latest' means (time window, ordering) or that results may be non-exhaustive due to openWorldHint. While sufficient for a simple read tool, the missing sibling differentiation makes it incomplete for an agent deciding between tools.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description need not compensate. The mention of 'filtered by tags and source' merely summarizes the schema without adding new meaning. This meets the baseline expectation for a schema-rich tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('get latest feed items') and mentions optional filters, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool query_security_feed, so an agent might struggle to choose between them. It is unambiguous but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus query_security_feed or report_incident. It implies a read operation but does not state any conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. Without context, an agent cannot determine the best tool for a given request.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description is consistent with these. It adds useful domain context about the feed contents, but it does not disclose behavioral details like ranking, pagination, or result ordering. With annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema present, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the domain and filtering options. There is no filler or repetition of schema content, so every clause earns its place.

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-search tool with full parameter documentation, a true output schema, and safe annotations, the description covers the query mode, domain, and optional filtering. It is slightly incomplete only in that it does not explicitly guide an agent toward or away from the sibling get_latest tool.

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 baseline is 3 even without additional description detail. The description reinforces that query is a natural-language request and that tags are optional filters, but it adds no syntax, formatting, or interpretation details beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb ('Query'), a clear resource ('feed items'), and a precise domain ('technology, compliance, and security news for AI agents'). It does not explicitly contrast siblings like get_latest or report_incident, so an agent can infer the distinction from purpose rather than from an explicit comparison.

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?

The description clearly implies usage for natural-language context searches with optional tag filtering, but it gives no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance. It does not tell the agent when get_latest would be the better sibling choice, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe write operation. The description adds the auth requirement and the 'pending submitted item' state, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but given annotations, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the authentication requirement. No wasted words; every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

Given the tool is a write operation with an output schema present (as indicated by context), the description covers the core behavior, authentication, and the pending state. It lacks explicit error handling or idempotency notes, but the output schema and annotations fill most gaps. A minor gap but not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters (title, description, url) are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'submit' and the resource 'an incident or signal', and explains it creates a pending submitted item via REST API. It distinguishes itself from the read-only siblings (get_latest, query_security_feed) by being the only write operation.

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?

The description gives explicit prerequisites (API key acquisition and authentication method), which is essential usage guidance. It implies when to use it (when reporting an incident) but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling read tools. Still, the context is clear and actionable.

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