fetch_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return shape, the fact that feeds can be huge and limit caps entries, and that only publicly-accessible URLs are supported. It doesn't discuss error behavior for invalid/non-feed URLs, timeouts, or whether entries are sorted/paginated, which would make it stronger.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by return fields, limit guidance, and URL scope. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema details 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains both returned sections (metadata and entries) and gives practical limit guidance, so an agent can call it correctly. It lacks explicit failure-mode handling and sibling differentiation, but for a simple fetch-and-parse tool it is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the url format and limit's default/meaning. The description adds only the rationale that feeds can be huge, which is useful but doesn't significantly expand on the schema. This keeps it at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 states the tool fetches and parses RSS/Atom feeds and enumerates the returned metadata and entry fields, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools search_entries and list_feed_metadata, though the full-feed return implies the distinction.

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 implies when to use it: when you want entries plus metadata from a public feed, and it gives practical limit guidance. However, it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when only metadata is needed (list_feed_metadata) or when a search over fields is required (search_entries).

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