Stream contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: continuation resumes a previous page (pagination semantics), newer_than is a unix-seconds watermark mapped to the GReader ot parameter, and the raw return payload shape is spelled out.

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 one short sentence, followed by compact per-parameter notes and a final statement of the return shape. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it still notes the {"items": [...], "continuation": "..."} shape, and it covers pagination, ordering, and id construction. The only meaningful omission is the count parameter's semantics and default, which leaves a small hole in an otherwise complete definition.

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 carries the burden and largely does: it documents stream_id formats, the meaning of order ('o' vs 'n'), the newer_than-to-ot mapping, and the role of continuation. It omits the count parameter entirely, which is the one remaining gap in a five-parameter 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch items for a stream.' That is clear and unambiguous, and the subsequent detail about stream ids confirms the resource type. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as freshrss_item_contents or freshrss_unread_count, which an agent might otherwise confuse with a general item-fetch.

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 rather than stated: it is a read tool for listing stream items, and the description explains the id shapes needed to target a stream. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer freshrss_item_contents (full body) or freshrss_unread_count (counts only), and no stated prerequisites.

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