feed_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds further behaviors: it includes an 'honest staleness flag', explicitly avoids credential/PII output, and clarifies the scope (public feeds only). This goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 slightly longer than minimal but packs each sentence with value: the first sentence lists outputs, the second clarifies scope, and the third gives usage guidance. No filler, though it could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its operational limits. For a zero-argument list tool, it provides complete guidance—including when to consult it—so an agent can invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema already fully covers inputs (100% coverage), but the description proactively states 'Takes no arguments,' eliminating any ambiguity. This adds clarity beyond the empty schema, aligning with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('public disclosure feeds'), plus enumerates the exact output fields (disclosure counts, newest item, staleness flag, cache ages). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like breach_timeline or check_exposure, which focus on different data or actions.

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 tells the agent when to use it ('Check this first if another tool's answer looks thin') and gives a rationale ('a stale live feed is a finding, not background noise'). It also states exclusions ('no .onion access, no arbitrary fetching or crawling'), preventing misuse.

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