get_feeds

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 discloses the return type (List[Feed]) and that it raises BingWebmasterError on failure, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether site verification is required, or any rate limits. The 'get' verb implies read-only but does not disclose the full behavioral profile.

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 compact and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clearly labeled Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every line adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 is a single-parameter read operation with an output schema (List[Feed]), the description covers the essential context: what it returns and the error condition. It does not mention prerequisites like site verification or access roles, which could matter for an agent selecting the tool, but the core calling information is complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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 does so by documenting the parameter: 'site_url: The URL of the site'. This gives the parameter meaning beyond the bare schema definition, though it is minimal and could elaborate on format or requirements (e.g., full URL with protocol).

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all sitemap feeds'), scoped to 'a site'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_feed_details (which likely targets one feed) and submit_feed/remove_feed (mutations). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without needing to inspect other definitions.

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 usage is implied: use this when you need all sitemap feeds for a site. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions, such as 'for a specific feed use get_feed_details' or 'when your site is already verified'. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case from the purpose alone.

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