get_feed_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's main behavioral addition is the privacy guarantee: it reports status without revealing feed URLs. This adds useful context about output behavior beyond the structured annotation fields.

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?

A single sentence that names the output, scopes the subject, and states the privacy constraint — no wasted words. The most important action ('Report') and subject are front-loaded.

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 no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what is reported and what is deliberately excluded. Nothing required to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 schema coverage is vacuously 100% and there is nothing for the description to add. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output behavior instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and precise objects ('configured source names and cache freshness'), and it also states what the tool intentionally does NOT do ('without revealing feed URLs'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calendar/list tools, which cover different subject matter.

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 clearly implies this tool is for checking status and cache freshness of configured sources, which is distinct from the sibling tools' listing and deadline functions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the usage context is evident and unambiguous.

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