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

Even though readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are already present, the description adds real behavioral detail: it enumerates the exact sources scanned (link tags, Link header, feed-shaped links, common paths, legacy feeds), notes the ordering ('deepest path prefix first'), and reveals that every attempted rung is returned. This is valuable information beyond the 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?

Two sentences carry a substantial amount of information with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the method breakdown and then explicit use cases. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the discovery process, ordering, and return behavior ('every rung tried is returned') well. It does not specify the exact response format or error/failure behavior, but this is a minor gap for a read-only discovery tool with already rich schema descriptions.

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 documents all three parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description vaguely aligns with the 'all' parameter ('want all of a site's feeds') and the task_context parameter ('tunes the result'), but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('Find the RSS/Atom/JSON feed(s) of a site') and elaborates with concrete detection methods. It also differentiates from the sibling feed_items by describing the debugging use case ('feed_items missed and you want to see why').

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you need a feed URL, want all of a site's feeds, or feed_items missed and you want to see why.' It names the feed_items alternative and ties usage to a specific symptom, giving an agent clear routing guidance.

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