Browse the school feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, matching the 'Browse' behavior. The description adds value by noting the pagination and the returned fields (titles, authors, dates, summaries, attachment names/links), which are not in the annotations. No contradiction found.

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 concise at two sentences, with no redundant words. The first sentence states the tool's function and output, while the second gives actionable usage guidance. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the key aspects: what the feed contains, that it is paginated, and the recommended workflow with get_post. No significant gaps.

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 fully documents all three parameters (page, query, school_id) with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to given the high schema coverage.

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 browses the paginated ParentSquare feed and lists the specific content returned (titles, authors, dates, summaries, attachments). It distinguishes itself from get_post by explicitly noting that get_post provides full text and attachments, making the purpose and boundary clear.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to find something, then get_post for the full text and attachments.' This tells the agent when to use get_feeds and when to switch to a sibling tool, satisfying the usage guideline dimension fully.

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