list_versions_rss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement (LEGISLATION_NZ_RSS_API_KEY), describes the return contents (entries with URL, version_id, timestamp, feed URL), and flags the tool as legacy. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a simple read tool.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose and endpoint in the first sentence, return structure and use case in the second, auth and alternative in the third. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it reads, what it returns, the auth key, and when to choose an alternative. It omits explicit mention of pagination or output format, but since it is an Atom feed and the scope is small, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, and the work_id parameter is already well-documented with an example. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond including work_id in the endpoint path, so it stays at the baseline score; no compensation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the exact resource ('legacy Atom feed of a work's versions'), and cites the endpoint path. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_versions by calling out the preference for on-demand queries, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to prefer the alternative tool ('For on-demand queries prefer list_versions') and implies the suitable use case for this tool ('subscribable feed URL for change monitoring'). It also conveys the separate API key requirement, which is a key prerequisite for using this tool correctly.

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