Validate a feed against Apple's requirements

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral semantics: errors are Apple-documented required fields that get the feed rejected or silently degraded, while warnings are non-blocking issues with concrete consequences like stalling a claim or re-publishing the catalogue. This gives the agent a strong model of what the check will report and why it matters.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides the essential error/warning distinction with concrete examples. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's behavior easy to parse.

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 three well-documented parameters, rich safety annotations, and a detailed error/warning semantic in the description, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its output. There is no output schema, but the description clearly defines the two classes of results. The tool is fully usable without needing additional context.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of limit: 'More is a more thorough check and a larger download,' which helps an agent reason about cost/benefit when choosing a value. It does not add new semantics for show or storefront, but those are already well described in the schema.

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 opens with 'Check a podcast's RSS feed against what Apple actually requires,' giving a specific verb, resource, and objective. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling feed-retrieval tools like get_feed by focusing on validation against Apple requirements and surfacing costly issues.

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 establishes a clear context: use this tool to validate a feed before submission or to surface things that will hurt the show later, such as missing owner email or unstable guid. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it over raw feed-fetching siblings.

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