feedbin_cached_entry

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: no network call and full (not truncated) content. It omits important behavior such as what happens when entry_id is not present in the cache (error vs. empty), and whether output mirrors the API entry shape.

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?

Four short fragments, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most decision-relevant fact (no API call). It earns its words, though the telegraphic style leaves connecting logic implicit rather than stated.

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 lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials are present but gaps remain: cache-miss behavior and how to source entry_id are undocumented. Adequate to attempt a call, not adequate to call it confidently in edge cases.

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% for the single entry_id parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never says what an entry_id is, where to obtain one (e.g., from feedbin_list_entries or feedbin_list_cached_entries), or that it is the Feedbin entry identifier rather than a cache row id.

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 and resource ('Return one cached entry') and adds scope ('from SQLite only. No Feedbin API call. Full content.'), which separates it from the live-fetch sibling feedbin_get_entry. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the cached-vs-live distinction is clear.

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?

'from SQLite only. No Feedbin API call.' implies the usage condition (avoid an API round-trip / offline access), and the 'Full content' note hints at why you'd pick it over a list tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus feedbin_get_entry, nor any prerequisite or failure-mode guidance.

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