search_rss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format (JSON list), defaults, and constraints (max days, limit, include_summary), and examples show expected usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation, prerequisites, or behavior on invalid feeds/empty results, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every line provides value—parameter details and examples are concise yet complete. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all parameters, return format, and provides examples, which is largely complete for a search tool. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and edge-case behavior (e.g., empty results, invalid feeds), but given the output schema exists, the agent can infer return details. Minor gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains all 5 parameters with types, defaults, and examples (e.g., feeds as a list of IDs defaulting to all, days with range 7-30, limit default 50). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states it searches RSS subscription data for articles containing a specific keyword, using the verb 'search' and resource 'RSS data'. It distinguishes from siblings through parameters like feeds and days, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for differentiation.

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 provides clear usage context: it explains parameter defaults (days 7 max 30, limit 50, feeds default to all), gives examples, and implicitly indicates when to use it (keyword search in RSS). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the intended scenario is clear.

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