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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that unread counts are included, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the keyset cursors in the 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and the payload, with the optional filtering clause last. No wasted words.

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, but the description discloses the key return element (unread counts). Pagination via before_id/before_name is documented in the schema but not surfaced in the description, which is a minor gap for a list tool with cursors.

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%, so limit, query, folder_id and both cursors are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the name/folder filtering, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List subscribed feeds') plus the returned payload ('with unread counts') and the filter dimension ('by name or folder'). This clearly separates it from get_folders and get_output_feeds, though it never names those siblings 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?

The phrase 'optionally filtered by name or folder' implies when the query/folder_id parameters are relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to sibling tools like get_folders or get_articles.

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