FeedMyAgent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only... needs no API key' is largely redundant. It does add two useful non-annotation facts: results are sorted soonest-first with structured date/venue fields, and city must be filtered client-side on event.city_normalized. That is real added context, but the disclosure stops short of pagination or result-count behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope before the sibling routing and the filter caveat. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence packs multiple instructions (filtering, asking the human, remembering) tightly together.

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 filtered read-only search with an output schema present, the description covers scope, ordering, sibling routing, the missing-city-filter workaround, and auth expectations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying that kind/genre/topic/date filtering exist and, more importantly, that there is no city parameter and city filtering must be done on the returned event.city_normalized field. That is semantics the schema does not provide.

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 (find) and resource (events), enumerates the kinds covered, and notes ordering ('soonest first'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_latest, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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 positive rule ('use this for anything about events') and names the specific alternative with its selecting condition ('use get_latest with product=events only for a raw newest-first scan'). It also tells the agent to ask the human about cities and genres before filtering.

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=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations do not carry: public feed data, no API key required, and newest-first ordering. It does not cover rate limits or response shape, so it is not a full 5.

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 waste, with the core purpose front-loaded before the routing guidance to siblings. Every clause earns its place by adding scope, ordering, or alternative selection.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering scope, ordering, and auth needs, an agent has everything required to invoke this correctly.

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. The description restates the filter dimensions (tags, source, product) already documented in the schema and adds no syntax or format detail, e.g. how multiple tags combine or how source/product interact with the default product stream.

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 (get) and resource (latest items from the ainews feed), plus scope details (technology, compliance, security news for AI agents) and ordering (newest first). It explicitly names the siblings it is not (query_security_feed, list_products), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 explicit use conditions: browse or monitor the feed here, use query_security_feed for task/topic-matched items, and list_products to discover product streams. Both when-to-use and the alternative selection criteria are stated.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this while adding genuinely new context: it returns public registry data and requires no API key. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but the openWorldHint and output schema cover the rest.

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 tight sentences with the purpose and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the usage routing and the safety/auth note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still names the key fields. Purpose, workflow position, and auth requirements are all covered for a zero-param discovery 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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does usefully explain where the returned slug is consumed (the product param on other tools), adding cross-tool meaning even though there are no local params to document.

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 product streams this API serves') and enumerates the returned fields (slug, name, description, web path, filters, use cases). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the discovery step before read tools like query_security_feed and get_latest.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first when you are unsure which stream fits your task' and names the exact downstream tools (query_security_feed, get_latest) plus how to chain the result (pass the slug as the product param). Both the when-to-use and the follow-up action are spelled out.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing that it returns public feed data and requires no API key, plus that results are relevance-ranked. It does not describe pagination or result volume beyond the limit param, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core action and scope, then the routing guidance, then a compact safety line. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage and clear sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to call 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%, so all four parameters (query, tags, limit, product) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the query is natural-language task description and that the feed is ainews, without new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the ainews feed for items') plus the ranking behavior and query type. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_latest, find_events, and list_products by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule ('when you have a task or topic in mind') and names each alternative with its selecting condition: get_latest for browsing without a query, find_events for the events product, list_products for discovering other streams. This is textbook alternative routing.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that a pending item is created via the REST API, that it is additive and never destructive, that an API key is required, and how to obtain and send it. It also surfaces conditional data requirements (starts_at minimum; city/country for non-online events), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the alternative, then behavior, then auth — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense with four distinct topic sentences, which is slightly more than a minimal description needs, but every sentence carries actionable 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?

For a write tool with nested event data, no idempotency, and an output schema present, the description covers the mutation semantics, auth prerequisite, and conditional required fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing, and return values are covered by the output schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value beyond the schema by stating the conditional rule that city and country are required for non-online events and that invalid or incomplete data is rejected. It does not add much beyond the schema for url/title/description, keeping it short of a 5.

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 ('Submit an upcoming event...to the events product') and enumerates concrete examples (concert, gig, meetup, conference). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling report_incident, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names when to use this tool ('contribute event listings') and when not to, pointing to the alternative ('use report_incident for non-event signals'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs among six siblings.

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 the write/idempotent/openWorld/destructive profile, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it creates a pending item via REST, automated classification reviews before publication, and it supplies the exact auth requirement (free API key via POST /keys with the owner payload and Bearer header). That is materially useful behavior not visible in the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the sibling alternative in the first sentence before behavior and auth. It is dense but every clause (scope, behavior, auth, cross-reference) carries distinct value; only the trailing list_products note feels slightly appended.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% param coverage, the description need not explain returns. It covers purpose, routing, mutation semantics, review pipeline, and the full auth path — nothing an agent needs to invoke 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% with 3 simple params, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (submit) and resource (incident/finding) and enumerates the kinds of findings accepted (security advisory, outage, novel attack pattern). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling report_event by scope (intelligence now vs. upcoming events).

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?

Explicitly says to use this for contributing intelligence and to use report_event for upcoming events instead — a named alternative with the condition that selects it. This is a textbook when-to-use/when-not routing.

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