Fetch public posts via RSS (공개 글 RSS)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts beyond annotations: the data source is an RSS feed (implying recency-ordered, feed-limited results) and that no authentication is required. It does not warn that RSS typically exposes only recent items, which is the main residual gap.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the resource and source front-loaded and the auth constraint appended. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needed to establish source, scope and auth — which it does. The one omission is that RSS feeds return a bounded recent window of posts, which affects how an agent interprets an empty or short result.

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 all three parameters (blog_url, limit, include_content) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior — e.g. that limit caps against a feed-imposed maximum or that include_content returns raw body HTML — so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the latest public posts ... from its RSS feed') and names the scope ('any Tistory blog'), which implicitly separates it from session-based siblings like tistory_list_posts. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool, but the RSS/public framing is distinctive enough to select on.

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 login needed' implies the condition that selects this tool (unauthenticated / public-only access), but the description never names tistory_list_posts or tistory_get_post as the alternative, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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