search_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a paginated search, what authentication might be required, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose ('Search WebSim feed') and efficiently adding the key feature ('with sorting options'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or 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?

Given that this is a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'WebSim feed' contains, how results are returned, or how this differs from other search/feed tools in the server. The agent would need to guess about important contextual details.

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 description mentions 'sorting options' which aligns with the 'sort' parameter in the schema, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already documented in the input schema (which has 100% description coverage). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting of parameter documentation.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('WebSim feed'), and mentions 'with sorting options' which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_trending_feed' or 'search_assets', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_trending_feed', 'search_assets', and 'search_relevant_assets', there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those options.

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