search_entries

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the core read-and-filter behavior and the case-insensitive matching, but lacks additional behavioral details such as whether the entire feed is fetched and filtered locally, pagination behavior, or potential performance implications.

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, with two focused sentences: the first states the primary function and the second gives a practical use case. There is no fluff, though the opening 'Fetch a feed' could be slightly more specific about returning entries.

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 three simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid but not fully complete picture. It explains when to use the tool and the core behavior, but does not describe return value structure or pagination, and it does not explicitly position this tool relative to fetch_feed.

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 parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it mainly reinforces the filtering concept already covered by the 'query' description.

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 action (fetch a feed and return filtered entries) and clearly identifies the matching behavior (title or summary contains a keyword, case-insensitive). It implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on filtered search rather than full feed fetching or metadata, but does not explicitly name the siblings.

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 second sentence provides clear context for when to use this tool: checking a feed for specific topics without needing to process everything. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like fetch_feed, so it misses the full when/when-not guidance.

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