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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: existing articles are skipped, new articles are polled every 15 minutes, posts queue for approval unless autoPublish is set, and publication requires the publish scope. The 10-feed cap and TikTok limitation are operational constraints an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler; the core behavior (skip today, post future articles) is front-loaded, and constraints (TikTok, 10 feeds) are packed efficiently at the end.

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 mutation tool whose annotations only cover safety flags, the description covers the full lifecycle: what is skipped, polling cadence, approval flow, scope requirement, target exclusions, and limits. With no output schema needed, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents url, accounts, platforms, and autoPublish. The description only reinforces the autoPublish approval/publish-scope nuance, which the schema also states; it adds no new parameter syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Follows') and resource ('an RSS or Atom feed'), and even clarifies the alias case where a blog URL resolves to its advertised feed. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_feeds, unfollow_feed, and update_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?

Gives real usage context: a 10-feed cap, the TikTok exclusion, and the conditional that autoPublish should only be used 'when the user asked for it'. It does not explicitly name the sibling (unfollow_feed) or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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