get_feed_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get detailed information' hints at a read-only operation, but it does not describe output behavior, potential errors, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The sparse description adds little beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core action and object.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and may explain return values, the description omits essential usage context: when to prefer this tool over siblings, what the parameters mean, and any behavioral caveats. For a tool requiring two opaque parameters with zero schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'a specific feed' but never explains that feed_url identifies the feed or that site_url scopes the request. An agent must guess the relationship between the two required parameters, which is a significant clarity gap.

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 clearly identifies a verb ('Get') and a resource ('detailed information about a specific feed'), which distinguishes this from list-style siblings like get_feeds. However, 'detailed information' remains vague, and no sibling is explicitly named, so it doesn't fully rise to the 5-level.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_feeds, get_fetched_url_details, or get_url_info. The phrasing implies 'use this when you need feed details,' but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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