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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: archived feeds are resolvable and the response self-describes that state instead of erroring. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but nothing here misleads.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents before the archived-feed edge case. The second sentence is a slightly dense run-on, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value — and it does, naming the three components returned. Combined with the archived-feed resolution behavior, nothing an agent needs 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 feedId parameter is documented as coming from list_feeds, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only 'one feed' scope and no format or sourcing detail beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case for a fully documented single parameter.

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 ('Full detail for one feed') immediately followed by an enumeration of what that detail contains: configuration, latest complete run summary, and rule-stack size. The singular 'one feed' plus the sibling name list_feeds in the schema makes the list-vs-single distinction obvious.

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 clear context for a non-obvious case: archived feeds resolve and say so, so a stale id from an earlier conversation yields an explanation rather than a not-found. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. list_feeds for discovery, get_run_status for run detail), so routing against siblings is only implied.

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