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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint already declaring a safe, closed-world read, the description still adds real behavioral context: the `ext__<name>__<tool>` namespacing, that server tools can be called directly to inspect returns, and that disabled servers are excluded and cannot be fed from. That goes beyond the annotations, stopping short of describing the return shape or ordering.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and the key id, followed by practical usage detail. Dense but every clause carries information; minor polish could tighten the namespacing sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return explanation and does so adequately — servers plus the feed-usable id. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it leaves return ordering/shape unspecified.

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% and the single optional `workspace` parameter is fully documented in the schema (omit to use the pinned workspace). The description alludes to workspace scope but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it lists the connected servers exposed to the workspace, together with the id a feed needs. The feed linkage is clear from the content, though it does not explicitly name the sibling feed tools it precedes (ledger_feeds_create/propose), so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 offers contextual guidance ('call one directly to see what it returns before proposing a feed') and an exclusion (switched-off servers are not listed and cannot be fed from), which implies when this list is useful. However, it never explicitly says when to use this vs. other ledger_feeds_* tools or states prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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