RTB feed details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only the small detail that feed settings are included in the result; it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior when the id is unknown, or format-scoped lookup. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it edges toward under-specification rather than crisp conciseness.

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 output schema, the description should carry some notion of what is returned; 'with its settings' gestures at that but never enumerates or characterizes the payload. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is minimally complete but leaves return-value expectations unset.

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%, and the schema documents both `id` (hex or numeric) and the `format` enum, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema is fully documented.

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 phrase 'One RTB demand feed with its settings' identifies the resource (a single RTB feed) and implies retrieval, but it uses no verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_rtb_feeds or get_rtb_stats. An agent can guess the intent but must infer that this is the single-item lookup.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative list_rtb_feeds. The singular 'One ... feed' is the only hint that this fetches a specific record rather than a collection.

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