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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile; the description adds the operational facts that matter: results are not paginated, integration-managed feeds are excluded, a project_id_required error can occur, and byChannel counts must be quoted rather than computed from the list. These go well beyond what the annotations declare.

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-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling disambiguation, and nearly every sentence carries operational content. It is dense to the point of overload in the tail, where the byChannel quoting rules are packed into one long clause without separation.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the item shape ({feedId, projectId, feedCode, ...}) and the byChannel aggregate shape itself, and it ties feedId to feed_id for get_feed / verify_feed_attributes. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result 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 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must carry it — and it does, explaining the scoped vs. all-projects behavior and that each item carries its own projectId, plus the fallback when the project scope cannot be resolved.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the customer's CREATED feeds') and immediately names the sibling it is not (list_feed_templates, the catalog of types). The distinction between created feeds and feed types is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise hit.

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?

States the use case ('find an existing feed and its feedId'), the alternative for templates, the optional-vs-omitted behavior of project_id, and the concrete recovery path when the call returns project_id_required (see list_projects, pass that project_id). There is an explicit exclusion for integration-managed feeds.

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