Feeds_getFeedDocument

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the transparency burden. It does indicate this is an informational call that returns metadata rather than contents and notes that it runs in a Kuudo deployment. However, it does not disclose response shape, authentication needs, rate limits, or what exact 'information required' is returned.

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 short and communicates its core purpose directly. The 'Catalog entry' phrase adds little value, but the overall structure is compact and easy to parse.

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-parameter, read-only metadata lookup, the description is close to adequate. However, with no output schema, it leaves the returned 'information required' vague and does not explain what an agent should do with it, such as fetching from a URL or applying a decryption key.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description. The input schema already reflects the parameter count completely, and the additionalProperties setting is the only nuance but does not require description-level explanation.

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 states that it 'returns the information required for retrieving a feed document's contents,' which identifies a clear resource and behavior. It distinguishes this from actually retrieving the contents or managing feed submissions, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling Feeds 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?

The description implies this tool should be used when an agent needs the retrieval metadata for a feed document, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as Feeds_getFeed or Feeds_createFeedDocument, leaving selection partially to inference.

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