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.