search_rss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes behavior fully: returns JSON list of matching items, supports filtering by feeds, days (default 7, max 30), limit (default 50), and include_summary flag. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is concise, covering all necessary information without redundancy. Every line adds value.

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?

Given moderate complexity (5 parameters) and a stated output format (JSON list), the description is complete. It doesn't deep-dive into edge cases, pagination, or error codes, but for a typical search tool with an output schema present, this is sufficient. It also lacks explicit mention of sorting or exact match behavior, but that's minor.

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 compensates completely. It explains every parameter: keyword (required), feeds (optional list, default all), days (default 7, max 30), limit (default 50), include_summary (boolean). Examples also illustrate usage, adding meaning 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?

The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: searching RSS data for articles containing a specific keyword. It uses a clear verb ('search') and resource ('RSS data'), and differentiates from siblings like get_latest_rss or search_news by focusing on keyword-based search across RSS feeds.

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 explains when to use the tool (when searching RSS feeds by keyword) and notes that if feeds are not specified, it searches all sources. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for typical search scenarios.

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