search_rss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return format (JSON list of matching entries) and explains default behaviors for all parameters (feeds default to all, days=7, limit=50, include_summary=False). It does not mention errors, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only search tool, this level of transparency is sufficient. The description is honest about what the tool does and does not overclaim.

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: a one-sentence summary, a clear Args block, a Returns line, and two concise examples. There is no redundant text; every sentence adds value. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, one required), the description is complete: it explains all parameters, defaults, return type, and provides examples. Even though an output schema is said to exist, the description still describes the return shape, which is helpful. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly without 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%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so comprehensively: keyword is required, feeds accepts a list of feed IDs (with examples), days has a default and max, limit sets result count, and include_summary controls summary inclusion. Every parameter is given clear semantics with defaults and examples, more than compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with a clear statement of purpose: 'Search RSS data for articles containing the specified keyword.' It specifies the resource (RSS data) and the action (search), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_news (likely searching non-RSS sources). The phrasing is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides examples showing typical usage, which implies context (e.g., searching with a keyword, optionally restricting feeds, setting time windows). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_news or get_latest_rss, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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