extract_rss_feed_tool

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and the default item count, and the read-only nature is evident from 'Extracts', but it says nothing about error handling for invalid feed URLs, timeouts, rate limits, or whether the extraction follows pagination in the feed. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence and the Args block is compact. Minor waste in restating the parameter name ('feed_url: The RSS or Atom feed URL'), but nothing that impedes scanning.

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, single-URL ingestion tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs to construct a call. Only edge-case behavior (bad feeds, limits) is unspecified, which is a modest gap.

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 compensate, and it mostly does: it gives concrete example URLs for feed_url and states both the meaning and default (10) for max_items, adding value beyond the bare 'string'/'integer' schema types. It does not specify an upper bound or validation rules for max_items.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Extracts recent articles, publish dates, links, and summaries from any RSS or Atom feed') and even states the exact payload fields returned. The feed-type framing (Substack, blogs, news) clearly separates it from generic scraping siblings like scrape_url or get_youtube_transcript.

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?

Usage is implied by the input ('any RSS or Atom feed') — an agent knows to call it when it already holds a feed URL. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over scrape_url or deep_crawl, and no mention of what happens with a non-feed URL or a feed that fails to parse.

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