get_daily_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the edition is deterministic and composed of two named parts, which goes beyond the schema. It stops short of return format, pagination, or ordering, so it is only partially transparent for an unannotated read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrase 'deterministic ethics edition' is slightly jargon-heavy but does not bloat the description.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain behavior and returns, and it does describe the two-part payload. It is still incomplete on how this feed differs from the four sibling feed tools and on ordering/format, which an agent needs to call it correctly among alternatives.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format and UTC default. The description's '(or a given date's)' adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (get today's daily feed) and clarifies the payload structure: one primary item plus a companion from a neighbouring module. However, it never distinguishes this from the many feed siblings (get_feed_since, get_feed_digest, get_feed_rotation), so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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 parenthetical '(or a given date's)' hints at the optional date input but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for picking this over get_feed_since or get_feed_digest, and no exclusions. A family of five feed tools with zero routing guidance is a real gap.

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