search_rss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses default values (days=7, limit=50, include_summary=False), the max limit for days (30), and the behavior when feeds are not specified (search all RSS sources). It also describes the return format as JSON. This is solid coverage for a search tool, though it does not mention error handling or rate limits.

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 clear sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Each sentence adds value, and the examples illustrate common usage patterns without unnecessary verbosity.

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 is complete for a search tool with 5 parameters. It covers parameter semantics, defaults, return format, and provides concrete examples. Although there is an output schema, the description also clarifies the purpose of each parameter and the overall behavior, making it fully self-contained.

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 has 0% description coverage, making the description the only source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter: keyword (required), feeds (with example and behavior when null), days (default and max), limit (default), and include_summary (default). This goes beyond the schema and provides essential usage details.

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 explicitly states '搜索 RSS 数据' (search RSS data) and further explains it searches articles containing specified keywords within RSS subscription data. This clearly identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_news.

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 context for when to use: searching RSS data by keyword. It also gives examples with optional feeds and days, showing the tool's flexibility. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like search_news.

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