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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it returns UI-level guidance rather than data, it performs no navigation or opening on its own, and it names the follow-up tool family. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned instructions, which keeps it at 4.

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?

The behavioral core is front-loaded in two sentences and is easy to act on. However 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is pure filler, and the closing paragraph on Feedly's REST API and Enterprise tokens is background justification rather than something the agent needs in order to call the 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?

With zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), that nothing is executed, and which tools to use next. It is slightly incomplete in not indicating how detailed or long the guidance is, or whether it covers the current UI version beyond the date stamp.

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 schema has zero properties at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; the description neither adds nor obscures parameter meaning.

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?

The description names the resource (feeds in the user's Feedly account) and then explicitly discloses what the tool actually does: returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) and 'opens nothing by itself'. That correction is essential given the name says 'list feeds', which an agent would otherwise read as a data-returning call. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like feedly_list_articles, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It states the two-phase workflow clearly: get the step-by-step instructions here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Feedly Cloud Browser. It also explains why this route exists (Feedly's API token is Enterprise-only, endpoints are Threat Intelligence oriented). It gives no explicit 'do not use when' condition, but for a zero-parameter guide tool the usage context is effectively complete.

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