List Product Streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'Needs no API key,' which tells the agent it can call this unauthenticated as a first step. It stops short of mentioning rate limits or response size, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose and the returned fields are front-loaded, followed immediately by the routing instruction and the auth note, so an agent gets the essential information in the first clause.

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 values need no further explanation, yet the description still previews the key fields. For a zero-param discovery tool, everything an agent needs (what it returns, when to call it, what to do with the slug, no auth required) is present.

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 clarify and the baseline is 4. The mention of the returned 'slug' field usefully signals the value the agent will later pass as a parameter elsewhere.

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 (list) and resource (product streams), then enumerates what each entry contains (slug, name, description, web path, filters, use cases). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read tools because it is framed as the discovery step that feeds them.

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 says when to use it ('Use this first when you are unsure which stream fits your task'), what to do with the result (pass the slug as the product param), and names the two tools that consume it (query_security_feed, get_latest). This is close to ideal routing guidance.

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