feed_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the query does not trigger network collection and lists the fields returned, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior despite page/limit/page_size params, or how 'failed sources' surface.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose, then the no-network constraint, then the routing hint, then the return fields. Every sentence earns its place, though the action list is packed inline rather than formatted for scanning.

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 no output schema, the description rightly enumerates returned fields (title, summary, original text, publish time, event_id). However, for a 6-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the missing pagination and source/keyword semantics leave the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it only indirectly names the action values (latest/search/summary/sources/catalog). The other five params (page, limit, source, keyword, page_size) are left with no meaning beyond their bare names and defaults.

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?

States a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (已缓存的订阅内容/cached subscription content) and enumerates the five modes (latest, search, summary, sources, catalog). It clearly contrasts with the network-fetching sibling poll_feeds, letting an agent distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 covers when-to-use (query cached content), when-not (does not trigger network collection), and the alternative path (call poll_feeds first to refresh, then check failed sources). Nothing is left to inference.

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