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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by enumerating what is returned and explicitly decoding the 'hold' vs 'queue' mode semantics, which nothing in the structured data explains. It omits ordering, pagination, or volume limits, but is otherwise behaviorally informative.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that spends its words on the returned fields rather than restating the title. The long enumerated clause would read better as a list, but nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so field by field, which is enough to call and interpret the tool. It stops short of stating sort order or whether the list is truncated, a minor gap for a listing 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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-level for the description to compensate for.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the RSS/Atom feeds this account turns into posts'), scoping it to this account's feeds and clearly separating it from the mutation siblings add_feed and remove_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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is evident this is the read/inspection tool among the feed siblings, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance and no mention of how it relates to add_feed/remove_feed or to the queue tools.

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