get_feed_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns List[Feed] and raises BingWebmasterError, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The return type is partially disclosed but the behavior beyond that is opaque.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args/Returns/Raises structure is clear and scannable. However, the Returns section is redundant with the output schema, and the Raises section is generic. Still, it's efficient and well-organized.

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 tool has an output schema and only 2 simple parameters, the description is mostly complete for basic invocation. However, it lacks context on when to use it, what 'detailed information' means beyond the schema, and any behavioral caveats. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the two parameters (site_url and feed_url) with brief descriptions ('The URL of the site', 'The URL of the feed'), which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It doesn't explain formats, whether they must be exact matches, or how they relate to each other. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does add some semantic value but not much.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific feed.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_feeds (which likely lists feeds) and remove_feed (which deletes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_fetched_url_details or other detail-retrieval tools, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_feeds should be used to list feeds first, or that this tool is for a specific feed's details. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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