feedbin_poll_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does address the two riskiest behaviors: it will not change remote read state, and it returns a summary rather than HTML bodies. It omits how many entries are fetched per run, whether the cache is replaced or appended, and rate-limit behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core action and the non-destructive guarantee front-loaded. Nothing in it repeats the tool name or schema.

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 zero-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, and return shape in miniature. The one gap is that 'a summary' is left undefined and cache replacement semantics are unstated, which matters for a tool whose whole job is populating a local store.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-scope operation ('unread entry bodies') rather than a filtered one.

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 (fetch) plus the precise resource (unread entry bodies) and its destination (local SQLite cache), which separates it from the remote-only list/unread tools in the sibling set. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces (e.g. feedbin_list_unread), so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Does not mark entries read' hints at when-not semantics relative to feedbin_mark_read, but the description never states the scenario that selects this tool over feedbin_list_unread, feedbin_list_entries, or feedbin_list_cached_entries. Usage is implied only.

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