Subscribe to topic feed

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

The description discloses that the tool is a mutation ('Update') which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. The idempotentHint=true is consistent with 'returns a podcast feed URL'. No additional behavioral traits beyond annotations are provided, such as authentication needs or side effects on existing subscriptions. The description adds the return value context, meriting a 3.

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 two short sentences that each contribute value: the first states the action and target, the second explains the output and usage. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and return value. However, it lacks details on whether subscriptions are replaced or appended, and does not reference related tools like list_subscriptions for managing subscriptions. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 clarify parameter meaning. It mentions 'to the given verticals' but does not explain how the array is processed (e.g., replaces or appends), nor does it describe the enumerated values beyond their names. This leaves ambiguity about the parameter's semantics.

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 action (update the listener feed) and the resource (human's listener feed), and specifies the return type (podcast feed URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article or search_articles by focusing on subscription. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from similar tools like list_subscriptions.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it should not be used. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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