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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses that archived feeds are excluded because they do not run or serve, and that only a person can restore one in the app. That is meaningful behavioral context for an agent deciding what this tool can and cannot surface.

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?

Three tight sentences: the return contents are front-loaded, then the discovery cue, then the archived exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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, so the description lists the important returned fields including latest run and audit issue count. It also covers the key exclusion and the restoration limitation, making it complete for a zero-param discovery tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-param tool is 4. The description appropriately focuses on result content instead.

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 every live feed') with workspace scope, and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this broad inventory from the detail-oriented sibling get_feed.

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?

'Start here to find feed ids' clearly signals the initial discovery use case, and the archived-feeds note explains an important exclusion. It does not explicitly name get_feed as the alternative for inspecting a single feed, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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