actualites_fils

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful structural fact that feeds are scoped one per school or theme, but says nothing about the shape of a feed entry or whether results are paginated.

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 short sentence with the resource stated first and its scoping qualifier second; no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so the brevity is not the problem.

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 list tool, the description is minimally sufficient, and annotations cover the read-only nature. Still missing is any hint of what distinguishes this feed enumeration from actualites_lister, which matters in a sibling set this dense.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The parenthetical about school/theme scoping is contextual rather than a parameter, which is fine here.

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 resource (news feeds) and clarifies its granularity ('un par école ou par thème'), so the agent knows it enumerates feeds rather than articles. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like actualites_lister or fil_nouveautes, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as actualites_lister or fil_nouveautes. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery step before reading articles.

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