inoreader-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully reveals the cost implication ('Costs 1 Zone 2 request'), which is a critical behavioral trait not evident from the schema. It doesn't cover other aspects like error conditions, response format, or permission requirements, but the cost disclosure adds significant value beyond the basic action description.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral information (cost). Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information about what the tool does.

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 with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and cost implications well, but doesn't address response format, error handling, or permission requirements. The schema handles parameter documentation, but behavioral aspects beyond cost are 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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Add, edit, or remove') and resource ('an RSS feed subscription'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions (which only reads) and manage_tags (which handles tags rather than subscriptions). It provides a complete action-oriented summary in the first sentence.

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 implies usage context through the cost statement ('Costs 1 Zone 2 request'), suggesting this is for subscription management operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_subscriptions (for viewing) or setup_auth (for authentication), nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions for different actions.

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