get_topic_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns (feed title, description, article entries) which is helpful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by topic ID explanation, parameter details, and return format. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 (which covers return values) and the description explains parameters and purpose well, it's mostly complete. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation and any rate limits or authentication requirements to be fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining topic_id as 'Google News topic hash identifier' and providing examples (cryptocurrency, AI). It also clarifies that language and country have defaults from config. However, it doesn't specify format requirements or valid values for language/country codes.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'news for a specific Google News topic ID', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like get_category_feed, get_geo_feed, and get_search_feed by specifying it's for topic-based feeds rather than category, geography, or search-based feeds.

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 clear context by explaining what topic IDs are (hashes for trending topics) and listing other feed types as siblings, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_category_feed or get_search_feed. It implies usage for topic-based news but lacks explicit comparison guidance.

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