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 that when 'feeds' is unspecified the tool searches all RSS sources, that 'days' has a max of 30, and that the return is a JSON list. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention matching logic or potential side effects (e.g., read-only nature).

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 a brief introductory sentence, a clear Args list, Returns section, and practical examples. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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, return type, and examples, making it complete for a search tool with an output schema. However, it does not reference how to obtain RSS source IDs (e.g., via get_rss_feeds_status) or specify behavior like sorting, which slightly limits completeness in a complex sibling context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, defaults, and constraints. For example, it clarifies 'feeds' as a list of RSS source IDs with behavior when omitted, and 'days' default and maximum. This is comprehensive and goes beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '在 RSS 订阅数据中搜索包含指定关键词的文章' (search articles containing specified keywords in RSS subscription data). It uses a specific verb ('搜索'/search) and resource ('RSS 订阅数据'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_latest_rss (which fetches latest items) and search_news (which likely searches general news).

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 by explaining the search functionality and parameter defaults, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_news or get_latest_rss. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, so guidance is only implied.

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