podcast_by_feed_url

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

The description discloses the return fields, which adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It confirms a read-only operation without contradictions, but does not elaborate on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences: the first efficiently states purpose and what is returned, the second gives a practical use case. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the return fields and a use case. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling (e.g., invalid URL) or performance considerations, but these are not critical for this straightforward tool.

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?

The sole parameter 'url' is described as 'RSS feed URL' in both the schema and description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format expectations or constraints, so it meets the baseline with no extra value.

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's function: 'Look up a podcast by its RSS feed URL.' It also lists the specific return fields (feed ID, iTunes ID, categories, last update time, feed health) and distinguishes from siblings like podcast_by_feed_id by focusing on URL lookup.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for checking if your podcast is properly indexed.' However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings like search_by_term or episodes_by_feed_id, nor does it state when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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