get_clean_feed

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it curates, de-noises, attributes sources, and reports honestly (thin coverage). This complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a key behavioral note. Every word adds value. No redundancy.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description leaves gaps. It fails to specify expected values for category, limit constraints, or return format. Incomplete for an AI agent to invoke confidently.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, category, limit). The schema provides structure but no semantics; the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states the tool returns a curated, de-noised, source-attributed feed for a query topic. The verb 'return' and resource 'feed' are specific, and the mention of honest coverage distinguishes it from siblings like get_market_narratives.

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 description implies honesty in reporting ('thin rather than padding'), which hints at when to use this tool, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it versus the sibling tool get_market_narratives. No alternative or exclusion is mentioned.

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