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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (fetch, parse, return items) and even lists fields, but does not disclose edge cases, error handling, authentication, or response format. This is adequate but minimal, offering no extra depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and output without redundancy. Every element is meaningful and the length is ideal for a tool of this simplicity.

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 tool is simple and the schema is self-explanatory. The description lists the return fields, which is helpful since there is no output schema. However, it does not mention the effect of the 'limit' parameter on the response or compare with 'fetch_many', leaving minor gaps.

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 covers both parameters fully: 'url' with format uri and 'limit' with default, minimum, and maximum. The description adds no additional parameter details, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool fetches and parses a single RSS or Atom feed and returns recent items with specific fields (title, link, date, snippet). The word 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'fetch_many', making the purpose explicit and non-confusable.

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 that this tool is for a single feed, which implies it is the right choice when one feed is needed. It does not explicitly name the alternative 'fetch_many' or provide exclusion criteria, but the 'single' qualifier gives sufficient guidance for most cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the merged, date-sorted output but does not cover failure modes, network errors, or partial feed handling. This is minimal but not entirely bare.

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 sentences with the main action front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. Each sentence carries useful information.

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 tool has a low complexity (2 params) and the schema fully documents parameters. The description explains the returned data (merged, date-sorted list) but does not specify item structure, which would be helpful given no output schema. Still, it is adequate for tool selection.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('List of feed URLs', 'Maximum items to take from each feed'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool fetches multiple RSS/Atom feeds and returns a merged, date-sorted list, distinguishing it from the sibling tool fetch_feed for single feeds. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'feeds' are specific.

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 context for use ('Useful for building a digest') and implies it is for multiple feeds by using 'several'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with fetch_feed or state when not to use it.

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