configure_rss_autopush

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY requirement, SSRF validation of feed URLs, deduplication by item GUID/URL, and a credit cost of 1 per delivered subscriber per new post. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a write tool with billing implications.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, prerequisites, runtime behavior, and return shape in a logical order. It is dense and runs long, but nearly every clause (auth key, SSRF, dedup, credit cost) carries decision-relevant information rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ ok, app_id, rss_enabled, rss_feed_url, rss_interval, dispatched_now, latest_item_title }), and it covers prerequisites, auth, security constraints, dedup, and billing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the response.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with examples and defaults. The description reiterates dispatch_now semantics and the interval/feed fields but adds no syntax or constraints the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (configure) plus resource (24/7 RSS/Atom/Sitemap polling) and names the secondary dispatch_now action, so an agent understands both the standing-config and immediate-trigger modes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from send_push_notification, which handles manual one-off messages.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context (blog, news portal, store wanting auto-broadcast of new articles), a when-not-to-use rule with the correct alternative (send_push_notification for manual one-offs), and a prerequisite (call list_apps to obtain app_id). Nothing is left to inference.

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