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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the feed lifecycle states, that a DONE response already carries the outcome, the warning-vs-error distinction, and the instruction to report summary numbers. This is genuinely useful operational context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: it leads with what the tool is, then lifecycle, then response shape, then the reporting instruction. Every sentence carries information, though it is longer than strictly necessary for a status-check tool.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (summary, errors_count, warnings_count, issues_sample, issues_note) and how to interpret them. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 67% and the schema already documents `wait` and `account_id`; `feed_id` is self-evident. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 ('Stato di elaborazione di un feed') and anchors it to a concrete producer ('es. quelli restituiti da bulk_delete_listings'), so the agent can place it relative to the bulk_* siblings. Nothing about the intent is ambiguous.

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?

Explains the async calling context clearly: IN_QUEUE/IN_PROGRESS means 'richiama fra un po'', and it names the originating operations that create feeds. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use clause, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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