Parse RSS or Atom feed

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds that output is JSON and token-efficient, but says nothing about network failure behavior, redirects, feed validity handling, or truncation semantics when maxItems applies.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the token rationale second. Nothing repetitive or padded.

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 read tool with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, most essentials are present. However, with no output schema the description never characterizes the returned JSON (field names, item structure, behavior when the feed is empty or invalid), leaving a real 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 100%, so both parameters (url, maxItems) are already documented, including the 'Max 200' bound. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch/parse an RSS or Atom feed') plus the output form ('into JSON'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from generic siblings like fetch_extract and fetch_html by naming the feed formats, though it never explicitly says it is the specialized choice.

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 format-specific framing and the 'saves 90%+ tokens vs raw XML' rationale, which hints at when to prefer it. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool named for non-feed content.

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