Feeds that just added a payment split

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful context — the 'newest first' ordering and the semantic distinction that these are first-time adopters — but discloses nothing beyond that, such as result shape or how the result set behaves as an open world over time. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, roughly 35 words, with the core result statement front-loaded and the second sentence earning its place by clarifying intent ('first time' adoption). No fluff or repetition of what the title already states.

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 two fully documented optional parameters, the description plus annotations cover safety, scope, and ordering. The only minor gap is the lack of any return-format hint — there is no output schema, and the description assumes an agent will infer that a list of feed objects comes back.

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% — both max and since are fully documented with defaults and timestamp semantics, including the negative-since special case. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb and resource — returns feeds that recently added a value block — and immediately clarifies the scope ('shows adopting listener payments for the first time, newest first'). This semantic positioning implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_new_feeds and list_value_podcasts, but it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than made explicit.

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 'growth edge... adopting listener payments for the first time' framing gives an agent a sense of when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative like get_new_feeds or get_recent_feeds. Context is implied rather than stated.

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