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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and external-access profile. The description adds that the sections are from a 'public RSS' feed, which implies no authentication is needed, but it provides no further behavioral details such as rate limits, freshness, or response format.

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 tool's output and followed by precise routing to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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, the description need not explain return values. For a zero-parameter listing tool with read-only and open-world annotations, the description conveys exactly what the tool returns and how it fits into the broader Kotaku toolset, making it complete for an agent to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description correctly does not introduce unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 ('List') and resource ('Kotaku's public RSS section slugs and subtopics'), making the tool's output immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming kotaku_headlines and kotaku_news as the destinations for actual stories.

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 explicitly routes the agent: use kotaku_headlines for stories in a selected section, or kotaku_news for the general feed, directly after stating what this tool returns. This gives clear alternatives and conditions for when not to use this tool, leaving no ambiguity about its role as a section-discovery step.

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