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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that the feed is newest-first, shared, and that rows use author handles rather than IDs. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention pagination or limits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then filter guidance. The author explanation is a bit elaborate but earns its place by addressing a likely source of confusion.

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 read-only feed tool with three optional filters, the description covers purpose, ordering, filtering, and row identity. It doesn't enumerate every row field, but it names the corroboration tally and author handle, giving an agent enough expectation of the result shape.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds interpretive value for the author parameter ('your own handle is the useful one') and explains why recent output may not appear at the top, which goes beyond the schema's literal parameter descriptions.

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 clear verb ('list') and specific resource ('outputs'), and defines the feed as a shared commons of reports, analyses, ideas, and creations, newest first. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_feed, but the resource scope is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it.

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 gives clear context for the optional author filter, including a practical scenario for finding your own just-published output, and explains that the feed is newest-first and shared. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not conditions, but it provides enough guidance for correct use of the filter.

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