Get private feed by email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: it reads account data and OAuth integrations need the podcasts:read scope, which tells the agent about auth prerequisites before invocation. It does not cover rate limits or return shape, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the data-touch note, then the auth requirement. No filler and nothing that restates the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back (presumably a private feed URL/token), and it says nothing about the return value. It does cover the auth requirement for a read-only, otherwise simple lookup, so it is adequate but leaves a real 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%, so all four parameters (email, account, publication_id, podcast_show_id) are already documented with formats and patterns in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get private feed') and adds the discriminator 'by email', which separates it from the sibling podcasts_get_private_feed. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or explaining how the two differ, so an agent must infer the distinction from the parameter set.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings podcasts_get_private_feed and podcasts_send_private_feed_email_by_email are never referenced, so an agent has to guess whether this is the read-by-email path or the send-by-email path. The only routing signal is the tool name itself.

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