Read a podcast's RSS feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the feed can be slow or unreachable, it parses the feed, and it returns the complete record unlike Apple's catalog. This adds real value about failure modes and data completeness.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words: the tool's action, its advantage over the alternative, accepted input types, and a performance caveat. The most important distinguishing information is front-loaded before the input types.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key operational concerns: what it returns, how it differs from catalog-based lookups, and the reliability caveat. It could mention whether non-Apple URLs need storefront, but the schema already covers that.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds the semantic context that the feed is the show's own server and that Apple IDs resolve via storefront, but it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch and parse'), a precise resource ('a show's RSS feed'), and the key distinction from Apple's catalog. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_podcast or get_feed_episode by emphasizing the complete record including Podcasting 2.0 fields.

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 contrasts with Apple's catalog and notes the feed is the show's own server. It names the alternative (Apple's catalog) but doesn't name a specific sibling tool; still, the context of when to use this tool versus catalog-based tools is clearly implied and sufficient. The 'Takes an RSS URL, an Apple id, or an Apple Podcasts link' line gives immediate input guidance.

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