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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavioral details: deterministic output, normalization steps (CDATA unwrapped, HTML stripped, dates to ISO-8601), signed receipt via EIP-191, no fabricated dates, and cost per call. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 a single dense sentence that efficiently packs purpose, normalization steps, output format, and cost. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'RSS/Atom feed URL → ... item list'. Minor clutter from em dashes but overall concise.

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 fully covers input, processing, output fields, determinism, signing, and pricing. No output schema exists, but the return format is explicitly specified. For a tool with one parameter, this is highly 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?

There is only one parameter (url) with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's 'the RSS/Atom feed to normalize (http/https)'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 takes an RSS/Atom feed URL and returns a signed, normalized item list. It specifies the unified format across RSS 2.0/RDF and Atom 1.0, and the concise title 'feed' combined with the sibling tools context (e.g., fetch, extract) makes its purpose distinct.

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 implies usage for normalizing feed URLs into a standardized format with core fields. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the sibling list and details like 'No LLM' and 'Core 4 fields only' provide contextual guidance.

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