Get private feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful OAuth scope requirement ('OAuth integrations require podcasts:read') and reinforces that it reads account data. It does not explain return behavior, pagination, or account-selection impact.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted elaboration. The first sentence is redundant with the title, but the auth scope requirement is useful and clearly placed. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the minimum needed. However, it omits sibling differentiation and any return-value context, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent choosing among the podcast feed tools.

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 in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail such as how account defaults interact with required IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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 states a clear action and resource ('Get private feed'), but the first sentence is largely a restatement of the tool title and name. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like podcasts_get_private_feed_by_email or podcasts_send_private_feed_email. The added 'Reads account data' gives only marginal specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite several sibling tools that retrieve or send private feeds. The description does not mention prerequisites, routing conditions, or the by-email variant. 'OAuth integrations require podcasts:read' is an auth note, not usage guidance.

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