Official Gazette RSS feed

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description thoroughly discloses runtime behavior: it details pagination URL patterns, all failure modes (invalid_request, unavailable, indeterminate, empty), and specific handling of items lacking title or link. This goes well beyond the basic 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 detailed yet well-organized, starting with purpose, then examples, then failure modes. While slightly long, every sentence adds value and there is minimal redundancy with the schema description. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers all key operational aspects: pagination, error handling, data_status values, and item filtering. It does not detail the output schema fields, but that may be provided separately. For a feed-reading tool, the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct usage.

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 schema already provides comprehensive description of the 'page' parameter (range, URL mapping, default). The tool description adds meaning by explaining the consequences of out-of-range pages (invalid_request) and behavior for pages above 1 with zero items (empty), enriching the semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool reads the Official Gazette RSS feed of Philippine issuances. The verb 'Reads' and resource 'Official Gazette' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools focused on earthquakes, weather, or procurement.

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 examples and explains pagination and failure modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., no comparative guidance against other government data tools). The usage context is implied by the tool's unique purpose but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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