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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scan' and 'find feeds needing attention' establish a read-only, diagnostic operation and the 'many active feeds' phrasing scopes the population, but it never says what the response contains (per-feed status rows? aggregated counts?), whether pagination or limits apply, or how 'stale' is thresholded. Useful but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability and scope first, then routing to alternatives. Zero filler and no redundancy with the schema.

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-required-parameter read tool, the description gives everything needed to decide when to call it and with what filters. The remaining gap is the absence of any signal about the return shape, which matters more here because no output schema exists to compensate.

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% and both enums are enumerated in the schema, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description only restates the three filter dimensions ('provider, symbol, or category') without adding combination semantics (e.g., whether filters AND together) or defaults, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Scan') plus resource ('current freshness/staleness') plus scope ('many active feeds') and an enumeration of filter dimensions. It explicitly separates itself from get_feed_health (single UUID) and get_oracle_health (dated ecosystem report), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 the positive trigger ('Use this to find feeds needing attention right now') and then names two concrete alternatives with the exact condition that selects each. Nothing is left to inference.

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