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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it clearly says 'Stop publishing' (implying a state change) and 'Free' (implying no cost), it does not reveal whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires authentication beyond the token, or what the effect is on subscribers if the feed is re-published later. It also doesn't describe the response format or whether any side effects occur (e.g., deletion of historical data).

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 extremely concise: only three short sentences, all of which add value. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Stop publishing a feed'), followed by a consequence and a cost note. There is no verbosity or redundancy, and it is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (though not provided in the input), the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a mutating tool with no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It omits any mention of required authentication context (e.g., whether the token must belong to the caller), error conditions, or reversibility. The simplicity of the operation (stop publishing) means it is mostly complete at a high level, but the lack of behavioral detail is a gap.

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 covers two of three parameters with descriptions (npub and token), giving a schema description coverage of 67%, which is moderately high. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'token' parameter is described as 'The feed token to stop publishing', which is adequate. 'dpop_token' is left undocumented in the schema and description, but it is optional with a default and may not require elaboration. Overall, the description is neutral and does not add significant value over the schema.

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 states 'Stop publishing a feed' with a clear verb and resource, and then clarifies the consequence ('Subscribers stop receiving updates'). It is distinct from the sibling tools such as goodearth_calendar_fetch or goodearth_calendar_list. However, there is minor ambiguity in 'feed' — it is not explicitly tied to 'calendar' — but the tool name makes the context 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does mention a consequence ('Subscribers stop receiving updates') which helps an agent infer usage, but there is no comparison with siblings like goodearth_calendar_dataset or goodearth_calendar_fetch, and no indication of prerequisites such as having a valid token or being the feed owner.

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