patreon_rss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it states the source is Patreon's 'canonical public RSS feed', limits the tool to explicitly public feeds, and warns that private member feeds and auth URLs are unsupported. This meaningfully informs an agent of failure modes without relying on structured metadata.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage boundary placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, what it returns, how to find the params, and what it cannot do.

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 simple two-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: return content, ID provenance, and scope limitations. It could additionally mention pagination or behavior for non-public feeds, but these are minor gaps for a feed-fetch tool whose public/private boundary is already explicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already identifies each parameter as a numeric ID. The description adds genuine value by explaining that campaign_id and show_id come from the public feed URL, giving the agent a concrete way to locate correct values beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 an explicitly public Patreon podcast RSS feed'), names the return content ('podcast channel metadata and episodes'), and scopes it precisely with 'explicitly public'. This distinguishes it from Patreon siblings that fetch creator profiles or tiers, and from audio-streaming siblings like Spotify/Apple podcast tools.

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?

Provides clear context by explaining the ID provenance ('numeric IDs in the public feed URL') and states an explicit exclusion ('Private member feeds and authentication URLs are not supported'). It does not name alternative sibling tools for private/member data, but the public-only scope effectively routes the agent away from this tool for non-public use cases.

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