webmaster_get_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only.' merely restates structured data and earns no credit. The description does add that the call returns status and error information for a single feed, which is modest extra context but not deep behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no padding. The second sentence is largely redundant with the annotations, a minor waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing are an explanation of host_id, any host-verification prerequisite, and routing versus sibling feed tools.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains only the URL key ('by feed URL') and says nothing about host_id, which is also required. Half the parameters remain opaque in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get one feed's status and errors'), and the singular 'One ... feed' contrasts with the sibling webmaster_list_feeds. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from near-neighbors like webmaster_get_feed_problems.

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?

'by feed URL' implies the lookup context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., host_id must resolve to a verified host), and no mention of the alternative webmaster_get_feed_problems for diagnostic detail.

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