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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or the nature of the response. The description is too sparse to inform the agent of any operational nuances.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informative content, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 list operation with an output schema present, the description should at least indicate what information is returned (e.g., feed names, polling intervals). It also lacks any mention of authentication or the need for an npub, which is a required parameter. The description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional context.

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 description coverage is 50%: npub is described in the schema but dpop_token is not. The tool description adds no information about either parameter, failing to clarify the role of dpop_token or how npub should be formatted. It does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource ('calendar feeds you have published') and the action (listing them, implied by 'feeds you have published' plus the context of listing). It also adds the detail about polling frequency, which distinguishes it from siblings like fetch or revoke. However, it does not use an explicit verb like 'list', so it relies on inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as goodearth_calendar_fetch or goodearth_calendar_revoke. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having published feeds) or scenarios where this is the appropriate choice. The description is purely declarative with no contextual direction.

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