feedbin_get_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one real behavioral trait — reads come from a local cache unless force_refresh is true — which is the kind of context annotations would not have covered. It says nothing about staleness guarantees, what 'full content' expands to, or auth/prerequisite requirements.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action and the cache-override caveat front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it accounts for one optional flag and leaves the other four unexplained. An agent cannot tell whether include_content_diff or mode meaningfully changes the payload or the cost of the call.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only explains entry_id implicitly and force_refresh explicitly. Four parameters — mode, include_original, include_enclosure, include_content_diff — are left completely undefined in both schema and description, and 'mode' in particular is opaque.

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: 'Get one entry by id with full content', plus a scope hint (full content vs summary). It does not name the nearby alternatives (feedbin_list_entries, feedbin_cached_entry, feedbin_extract_content), so the agent must infer when a single-entry fetch beats a list or cache read.

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 second sentence implies a caching workflow and when to override it with force_refresh=true, which is genuine usage guidance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing to sibling tools such as feedbin_cached_entry or feedbin_list_entries.

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