get_category_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get headlines' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or what happens if invalid parameters are provided. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then provides a clear Args section with parameter details, and ends with Returns information. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 has an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It provides adequate parameter semantics and a clear purpose. However, as a read operation with no annotations and multiple sibling alternatives, it should include more behavioral context and usage guidance to be fully complete for an AI agent.

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 adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides the complete enum list for the 'category' parameter (WORLD, NATION, BUSINESS, etc.), explains that 'language' and 'country' default to config values, and clarifies that only 'category' is required. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack 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 ('Get') and resource ('headlines for a specific category'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_top_headlines' or 'get_geo_feed' by focusing on category-based filtering rather than geographic or search-based feeds. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_topic_feed' or 'list_categories', leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 like 'get_top_headlines' or 'get_search_feed'. It mentions the 'category' parameter but doesn't explain when category-based filtering is preferred over other filtering methods available in sibling tools. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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