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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying 'read-only and never contacts a source website.' It also adds the important scoping detail that only the caller's own feeds are listed, which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and returned fields; the second adds essential behavioral context and user guidance. No filler or redundant material.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, behavioral safety, and the fallback path for creation/management. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and set user expectations.

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 is nothing to explain about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds value by describing what the result includes (schedule, state, most recent run), even though no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the caller's own recurring web data feeds') and names the fields included (schedule, state, most recent run). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like GetWebDataFeed, but the scope and wording make the purpose clear.

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 explicitly states this listing operation is read-only and never contacts a source website, and tells the user to use the Equibles Portal for creating or managing feeds. It gives clear exclusions, though it doesn't directly compare against the sibling GetWebDataFeed tool.

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