check_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states only that it returns 'status and result' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or what happens with invalid feed_id. Minimal transparency.

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 very short (one sentence) and lacks structure. It is concise but under-specifies, and the Spanish language adds a barrier. Front-loading is not relevant due to brevity.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it fails to provide enough context about when checking a feed is appropriate. With two parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. 'feed_id' is implied but 'marketplace' is not explained (e.g., default, usage). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 checks the status and result of a massive update feed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_report by specifying 'feed de actualización masiva'. However, it is in Spanish, which may reduce clarity for English-centric agents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_report or get_listing_issues. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for invoking the tool.

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