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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits: only public feeds are listed, results are sorted most-followed-first, and an optional collection filter is supported. However, it does not mention pagination, auth requirements, or the shape of the returned feed objects.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The key facts—public scope, ordering, and optional filter—are all included and front-loaded efficiently.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description covers scope, ordering, and filtering. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned feed entries look like or whether any pagination is involved, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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% since the only parameter, 'collection', is already described as a collection slug. The description adds that the collection is optional, which is a small but useful clarification beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as public feeds and specifies ordering by follower count, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like feed_items or list_collections. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name 'list_feeds' supplies that verb unambiguously.

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?

The description implies usage for browsing public feeds and optionally filtering by collection, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as feed_items or search_items. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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