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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context the annotations lack—the required posts.read permission and a 404 for out-of-workspace ids. That cross-workspace failure mode is exactly the kind of detail 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?

Front-loads the resource and payload contents, then adds only two short, high-value sentences on sibling scope and permissions. Every sentence earns its place; slightly list-like phrasing keeps it just below exemplary.

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?

With an output schema present, the field enumeration in the description is a bonus rather than a requirement. Auth requirement and error behavior are covered; cross-workspace scoping is handled by the schema's workspaceId text, so little 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 description coverage is 100%, including detailed workspaceId semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only repeats that lookup is by id and does not add format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Get one RSS feed by id') and enumerates exactly what it returns: settings, targets, status, pauseReason, lastError, last checked/posted timestamps. This clearly distinguishes it from list_rss_feeds and list_rss_feed_items without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes item-level inspection to list_rss_feed_items, which is the most likely alternative an agent would confuse it with. It does not explicitly contrast with list_rss_feeds or check_rss_feed, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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