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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the curated scope and the return fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. This is above baseline given the annotation 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?

The description is two concise sentences with the action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, mentioning the output fields, optional filters, and the related read_feed tool in a compact, readable manner.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, how to filter, and where to go for single-feed reads. There are no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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% for both parameters (query and category), so the structured data fully documents them. The description only restates that filtering is optional without adding format, constraints, or usage details beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 lists curated finance & markets feeds with specified fields (id, title, category, source). It distinguishes itself from sibling read_feed by explicitly directing the user to pass an id to read_feed for individual feed access.

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 provides explicit guidance: use list_feeds to list feeds, optionally filter by category or keyword, and use read_feed when you have a specific id. This names an alternative tool and indicates when to use it, fulfilling the dimension's requirement.

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