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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful operational context: what state fields can be inspected, what a not-found error means, and that the tool is org-scoped with no accountId required. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the use case, then adds source, error semantics, and org scoping in compact sentences. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the remaining ambiguities: when to use it, where feedId comes from, error implications, and org scoping. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains feedId fully. The description repeats the feedId provenance from list_feeds/connect_feed and adds org-scoping context, but it does not add format or syntax details beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve one feed's current state by feedId. It explicitly distinguishes this from listing feeds and enumerates the kind of state returned, so an agent can tell it apart from list_feeds or preview_feed.

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?

It gives a clear precondition (you already have a feedId) and the main alternative behavior (avoid listing every feed). It also says where feedId comes from, but it does not explicitly cover when to use update_feed, delete_feed, or preview_feed instead.

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