List feeds the index has given up on

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond this: what qualifies as dead, that crawling was abandoned, and that entries may indicate duplicated feeds. It does not describe ordering or full return fields, but safety and mutability are well covered.

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 compact and each sentence earns its place: definition, duplicate-feeds detail, use cases, and size caveat. It is front-loaded with the primary behavior before secondary details.

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?

The description gives enough to select and invoke the tool correctly: it is a large read-only list operation with one optional cap. Since there is no output schema, it could say a bit more about what fields each entry contains, but the duplicate-feed note partially fills that gap.

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 thoroughly documents the single `max` parameter, including default and local truncation. The tool description's 'This is a large list' reinforces that, but adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('feeds Podcast Index has marked dead') and the action (list), and defines what 'dead' means operationally. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_recent_feeds and get_new_feeds.

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 concrete use cases: auditing shows that have quietly stopped and understanding directory churn. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'dead' framing makes the intended context clear.

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