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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations don't: newest-first ordering, the org-wide rather than account-gated scoping model, and cursor-based pagination with nextCursor. It stops short of any auth or rate-limit context, and some of the return-field detail overlaps the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and purpose, and every sentence carries information. The accountId carry-over warning runs long and could be tightened to one sentence without losing meaning.

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?

Covers purpose, when to call, how to scope accountId, pagination mechanics, and what fields come back, while an output schema handles the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema can't: accountId narrows an org-wide list rather than gating access, unlike sibling account-scoped tools, plus an explicit warning not to carry over an unrelated accountId. That distinction is the single most likely invocation error and it is addressed directly.

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 (list the organization's feed subscriptions) and immediately names what each entry contains. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_accounts, list_boards and other account-scoped tools, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggers (user asks which feeds/blogs they have connected, or a feedId is needed for get_feed/update_feed/delete_feed) and names the sibling tools that consume the output. It also handles the non-obvious case: omit accountId for a general question even when an accountId is in context.

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