mdl_feeds_fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that params is a pass-through JSON object of upstream parameters, which conveys no additional behavioral context such as scoping, pagination, or auth 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?

Two short fragments with no wasted words, but the first fragment merely echoes the name and the whole is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here reflects missing content, not efficiency.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description never says what a returned feed contains, whose feeds are retrieved, whether results are paginated, or how the opaque params object should be formed. Annotations cover safety only, leaving the functional picture incomplete.

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 carry the load. It says only that params is "a JSON object of upstream parameters" – a hint at pass-through semantics, but no indication of what keys are expected or which upstream endpoint they map to.

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?

"Feeds: fetch" essentially restates the tool name rather than describing what is fetched. It does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling mdl_feeds_get, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. With both mdl_feeds_get and mdl_feeds_fetch present in the sibling list, the absence of any routing guidance is actively unhelpful.

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