feed_latest

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, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, rate limits, caching, or failure modes. 'Recent' is undefined (time window? count?) and the read-only nature is only implied.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, but the required, enum-less 'feed' parameter with 0% schema coverage leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call. The description should at minimum enumerate valid feed identifiers.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters are bare. The description's mention of 'parliamentary or AFA feeds' hints at the domain of the required 'feed' string but gives no accepted values, and it says nothing about 'limit' beyond the schema default.

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 and resource: return recent items from official parliamentary or AFA feeds. The 'latest'/recency scope is clear, but it does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like tramits_search, govern_search, or bopa_search, which also surface parliamentary content.

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 exclusions, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is the preferred route for recent items versus running a targeted search via a sibling.

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