Actionable-now feed

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds extensive behavioral context: the actionability scoring scale (high vs medium), expected empty lists during off-hours, deduplication behavior, and novelty-first ordering. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers key details but could benefit from breakpoints or bullet lists for readability. No unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, semantic filters, market hours context, sibling differentiation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It addresses expected behaviors, edge cases, and alternative tools, enabling confident 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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining how min_actionability interacts with the default floor, how min_novelty serves as a secondary threshold, and how dedupe collapses syndicated reprints. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 provides 'breaking, decision-grade news from the last few hours' with specific actionability filtering. It uses a concrete verb-resource ('Actionable-now feed') and distinguishes itself from siblings like alphai_trending and alphai_ticker_news, which serve broader tape needs.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for high-actionability, act-today news) and when not to (use alphai_trending or alphai_ticker_news for broader tape). It also explains expected empty results outside market hours and how to adjust parameters to include medium-actionability items.

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