search_rss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only search nature, the 'all feeds if unspecified' behavior, defaults for days/limit/include_summary, and a JSON return format. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or errors, but for a search tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 well-organized into Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, and the most important facts (what it searches and what is required) come first.

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 parameters, examples, and the return format, and an output schema exists so field details are not required. The main gap is that it never explains when to choose this over the very similar search_news sibling, leaving a small selection ambiguity.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: keyword is required and used for matching, feeds defaults to all sources when omitted, days defaults to 7 with a max of 30, limit defaults to 50, and include_summary defaults to False. This adds semantics far beyond the raw schema types.

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 it searches RSS data for articles matching a keyword, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_news, so an agent must infer the distinction from the RSS focus.

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 gives usage context, e.g., '不指定时：搜索所有 RSS 源' and explains default days/limit, which helps an agent decide how to fill parameters. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_news or get_latest_rss.

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