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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the absence of a verified category filter (a capability limit) and that include_content toggles full content bodies. It doesn't cover pagination or result volume, so it stops 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, tight and front-loaded: scope first, then the parameter, then sibling routing. No filler, though the semicolon-joined caveat is slightly dense to parse at a glance.

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 one-optional-param feed tool with an output schema (so returns need no explanation), the description covers scope, the key capability caveat, and where to go for categories or a single article. 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% and the single boolean is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Set include_content=true to include each item's full content body' restates the schema with only marginal added nuance.

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 (Fetch) and resource (latest public LiveScore RSS news items) with scope ('across available sports'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by name (livescore_news_categories, livescore_news_article), so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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 says when to use alternatives: livescore_news_categories to discover labels and livescore_news_article for a single story. It also states a when-not condition ('there is no verified category filter'), removing an assumption an agent would otherwise make.

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