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 of behavioral disclosure. It covers feed scoping behavior, default and maximum days, limit default, include_summary default, and the JSON return format. It does not mention sorting, matching semantics, or error behavior, but these are relatively minor for a search tool.

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 a one-line summary, an Args block, Returns, and Examples. Every section earns its place, there is no filler, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 five-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics, defaults, return type, and provides two concrete invocation examples. It omits details like valid feed identifiers and sort order, but these are largely discoverable from sibling tools and do not prevent correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: keyword is required, feeds has an example and default behavior, days has default/max, limit has default, and include_summary has default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific action: searching RSS subscription data for articles containing a keyword. It is unambiguous about the resource (RSS 订阅数据) but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_news or get_latest_rss, so it stops short of full 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 gives useful behavioral context such as 'search all RSS feeds when feeds is not specified' and includes examples, which imply typical usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some routing decisions to the agent.

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