List podcast feeds

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that it reads saved registrations without fetching RSS and returns feeds plus a count, though it does not discuss pagination or result 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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then gives routing guidance, then clarifies non-RSS behavior. Each sentence adds distinct value with no filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations, complete schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains ordering, inclusion of polling settings, return count, intended downstream use, and that RSS is not fetched.

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 enabled_only parameter is already fully documented, including the consent caveat. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List registered podcast feeds newest first, including their saved polling settings.' It clearly scope-limits the operation and distinguishes it from episode inspection and source consent siblings.

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 explicitly states the primary use case—obtaining a feed_id before polling or removal—and names alternatives: list_podcast_episodes for inspecting episodes and list_sources for standing-source consent.

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