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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it does not move the schedule, re-running is idempotent ('readings dedupe per time bucket'), and it may return `needs_confirmation`. That is precisely the mutation/idempotency/approval information an agent needs.

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?

Four tight sentences, action front-loaded, and every clause adds distinct information (trigger, failure handling, schedule safety, idempotency, confirmation state). 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-value burden; it names the two meaningful statuses (`empty`, `needs_confirmation`) but does not describe the normal success payload. Combined with the unexplained `approvalId`, one gap remains, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 67%; `id` and `workspace` are documented in the schema, while `approvalId` is undocumented. The description's mention of a possible `needs_confirmation` return hints at the approval flow tied to `approvalId`, but never explains the parameter, so it only marginally compensates.

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 with scope: 'Run a feed immediately over its own window and record what it finds.' The 'over its own window' framing implicitly separates it from ledger_feeds_backfill, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear trigger: 'Use it right after creating one to prove the mapping works.' It also routes the failure case to ledger_feeds_update. No explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer preview or backfill), but the context is concrete.

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