status_feed_urls

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 keyless access, direct polling, conditional availability of RSS/Atom, and the inclusion of normalized history JSON. It does not cover failure/not-found behavior or clarify whether the history JSON is a URL or the data itself.

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 with the subject front-loaded; the em-dash enumeration packs useful detail without padding. The closing phrase 'for the vendor' is mildly redundant, but no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, it lists the returned endpoint categories and the no-key workflow, covering most practical needs. But the exact response shape is unspecified, and ambiguity remains about whether normalized history JSON is a URL or the content itself.

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 fully documents the single vendor parameter, so baseline 3 applies. The description's phrase 'one vendor' is consistent but adds no meaningful semantic detail 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 clearly states what the tool returns: machine-readable status-page endpoints (summary JSON, incidents JSON, RSS/Atom) plus normalized history JSON, scoped to one vendor. This distinguishes it from siblings like vendor_incidents and vendor_status by emphasizing raw feed URLs rather than interpreted status data.

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?

It gives a concrete use case—polling a vendor directly without an API key—which helps an agent recognize when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving the routing somewhat implied.

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