foreignaffairs_topics

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. It discloses that the output is a 'complete research-backed directory' and that each entry includes a public RSS feed URL, setting accurate expectations for a read-only listing. It omits caveats like rate limits or data freshness, but for a zero-parameter list tool the disclosure is adequate.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded. Every clause adds value: it names the resource, the return contents, and the relationship to the companion tool foreignaffairs-topic.

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 zero-parameter directory tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns (topic values and RSS feed URLs), and how to use that output with foreignaffairs-topic. There are no prerequisites, hidden parameters, or missing behavioral warnings.

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 schema is an empty object with zero parameters, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for this case. The description confirms the tool takes no topic argument and instead enumerates all topics, which matches the empty properties object. Nothing further is needed.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('List Foreign Affairs topic feeds') and goes on to define the return as a directory of topic values accepted by foreignaffairs-topic, including each topic's public RSS feed URL. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like foreignaffairs_article, foreignaffairs_headlines, and even the singular foreignaffairs_topic.

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 phrase 'accepted by foreignaffairs-topic' effectively tells the agent to run this first in order to enumerate valid topic values before calling the singular topic feed tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with other Foreign Affairs siblings, but the directory-to-feed relationship is strong contextual guidance.

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