get_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that 'Headlines may be outbound' and includes an instruction 'Do not fetch Hopper,' adding some context. However, it does not describe response format, pagination, errors, or safety profile, leaving significant gaps for a read operation.

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 short and front-loads the core action (GET /feed.json). However, 'Not tax advice' is gratuitous and does not earn its place, slightly detracting from overall conciseness.

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?

For a simple parameterless GET endpoint, the description is adequate but not complete. It hints at content ('headlines') and includes warnings, but lacks details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or expected response structure. Given no output schema, more explicit return info would help.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are no parameters to document.

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 action: 'GET /feed.json from the public newspaper.' It specifies the resource and source, and 'Public newspaper only' further narrows scope. This distinguishes it from sibling endpoints like get_edition or get_best_of_the_rest, even without naming 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?

Provides a clear context ('public newspaper only') and a specific exclusion ('Do not fetch Hopper'), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than stated, leaving some ambiguity about choosing among siblings.

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