search_rss_feeds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose any safety implications (e.g., read-only nature), side effects, or constraints. The description only describes the basic function without addressing behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by parameter descriptions. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the German language does not affect scoring. Every sentence 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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the input parameters adequately but does not describe the output format, pagination, or any error conditions. For a search tool with three parameters, this is minimally complete but leaves some gaps.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by including an 'Args' block with explanations for each parameter: examples for query, explanation of categories (comma-separated or 'all'), and default value for max_results. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description effectively compensates.

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 'Durchsucht Nachrichten in allen Kategorien nach einem Suchbegriff', which specifies the action (searching), resource (news in all categories), and required input (search term). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'all categories', but could be more specific in differentiating from similar tools like search_global_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools might be preferred. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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