get_subscription_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that sign-in is required and that results are cached (making repeated calls cheap), which materially affects how an agent plans calls. It stops short of explaining pagination, return format, or what happens with zero subscriptions, but covers the main operational traits.

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?

Three short sentences carry the core purpose, the sign-in requirement, caching behavior, and a cross-tool suggestion. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema summary, the description conveys the operation's purpose fact. It also signals important operational context (sign-in required, cached results) that an agent needs for repeated calls. It does not spell out response shape or rate-limit implications of caching, and with four parameters all covered by the schema it is still fairly complete for a read-only feed tool. Minor gap around exactly how merged ordering/filtering is resolved, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call it.

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 all four parameters are already documented with types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds the 'merged' context and the cached behavior but doesn't need to repeat schema-level parameter details beyond that. 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?

The description names a specific resource ('subscriptions' feed) and a specific action ('merged newest-first feed of recent uploads'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_channel_uploads and search_videos. It also explains the user-facing concept ('what is new from the channels I follow'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 states when to use the tool (after sign-in, to see new uploads from followed channels) and suggests composing it with get_transcript. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternatives (e.g., search_videos for query-based discovery), but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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