search_rss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns JSON list, requires keyword, optional feeds (default all), days default 7 max 30, limit default 50, summary flag. No contradictions. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or auth, but covers the primary behavior well.

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 description is well-structured with a summary line, Args list, Returns, and Examples. It is compact and efficient, with no redundant information. Every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers input constraints, default behaviors, and output format. It includes examples. It could mention error cases or pagination beyond limit, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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. It provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters: keyword (required), feeds (list or null, default all), days (default 7, max 30), limit (default 50), include_summary (default False). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states it searches RSS data for articles containing a keyword. It is specific about the resource (RSS subscription data) and the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_news or get_latest_rss, which could have overlapping functionality.

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 through examples and parameter descriptions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any conditions under which it should not be used. The examples provide basic context but no exclusions.

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