Get a project feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: feed content is untrusted and returned as data (a prompt-injection/trust warning), and the response is limited to last rows with no full-export or pagination guarantee. That is real behavioral value the annotations do not carry.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope limit and trust caveat front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is slightly cryptic ("One documented v1 feed read"), but nothing is wasted and the key constraints appear early.

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 still conveys the shape of the result (last rows, untrusted data, not an export) and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. For a two-parameter read tool it is nearly sufficient; only the concrete return structure is left unspecified.

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 both parameters (account, feed_id) already document exact-match semantics, format restrictions and the lack of inherited key fallback. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, 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 phrase "One documented v1 feed read" identifies the verb+resource but is circular and hedged, leaning on the tool name rather than describing what a feed read yields. It does scope the operation (not an export, not a pagination claim, not an editor), which helps separate it from write-oriented siblings like create_render or update_template, but the reference to "the sample" blurs the line with get_feed_sample instead of sharpening it.

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 gives negative scope ("not a full export, pagination claim or feed editor") which implicitly tells the agent what not to expect, and the passing mention of "the sample" hints at get_feed_sample as the contrasting sibling. However, it never states when to call get_feed versus get_feed_sample or list_feeds, so routing is left to inference.

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