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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantial context: the 20-feed cap, the feed-to-post relationship, the posts.read permission requirement, and the full set of pause states (FETCH_FAILURES, CONSECUTIVE_FAILURES, ACCESS_LOST, SUBSCRIPTION_INACTIVE, CONNECTION_REMOVED) with the note that pauseReason and lastError identify which. That is genuine behavioral disclosure an agent could not get from the 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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence is information-dense. The pause-state enumeration is long for a listing tool and arguably belongs with the feed resource, but it earns its place by explaining pauseReason values.

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, return values needn't be described, and the description still covers scope, ordering, limits, permissions, and the meaning of the pause fields. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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% and the single optional workspaceId already documents the default-workspace behavior and cross-workspace id caveat, so the parameter is fully specified without the description. The description's 'the current one unless workspaceId names another' restates the schema rather than adding new semantics.

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 RSS and Atom feeds'), scopes it to the workspace, and adds ordering ('newest first') and a hard cap ('at most 20'). This clearly separates it from get_rss_feed and list_rss_feed_items, which operate on a single feed or its items.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing verb and the note that it takes only the optional workspaceId, so an agent can infer this is the enumeration call. However, no sibling is named (get_rss_feed, check_rss_feed, preview_rss_feed, list_rss_feed_items) and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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