parse_rss_atom_resilient

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It does so by enumerating concrete auto-corrections—malformed XML entities, unescaped HTML, invalid ISO dates—and disclosing the 0.005 USDC cost. It stops short of describing error handling or whether the feed is fetched remotely, but the core behavior is documented.

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 two compact sentences with the purpose and key behaviors front-loaded. The cost is tucked into a short parenthetical, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description leaves important invocation details ambiguous: the payload format and the return shape are not specified. The low parameter count and clear use case make the tool usable, but an agent may still need to guess whether to pass XML content, a URL, or structured JSON in payload.

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 the baseline is 3 even with no parameter detail in the description. The schema's payload description is generic boilerplate, and the tool description doesn't clarify whether payload should be a feed URL, raw XML, or a JSON object.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: parsing RSS 2.0 and Atom feeds with fault tolerance. It lists specific repair behaviors, and the RSS/Atom scope distinguishes it from the many sibling parse/repair 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?

'Fault-tolerant' plus explicit feed formats signals the intended use case: parse RSS/Atom content, especially when malformed. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain scoping gives an agent enough context to select it correctly.

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