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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: the hard cap of 50 discovered links and the fact that it is free with no key, credits or wallet required.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core purpose, but the pricing sentence and the incorrect 'Supply your task in input' line consume space without adding usable information for an agent trying to invoke the tool.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the link cap is a helpful extra. However, for a tool whose sole argument is a nested object at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves baseUrl unexplained and gives a misleading hint about the input format.

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 0% and the only parameter is a nested object exposing 'html' and 'baseUrl'. The description implies the HTML input but never explains the nested input shape, and 'Supply your task in input' mislabels the parameter (there is no 'task' field), while baseUrl — important for resolving relative feed links — goes completely unmentioned.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Discover up to 50 RSS, Atom and JSON Feed links declared in supplied HTML.' This clearly separates it from broader siblings like html_links or html_jsonld, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer html_links or html_metadata over this tool, and no prerequisites. The phrase 'Supply your task in input' is boilerplate that gives no real routing information.

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