direct_list_feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' merely restates them and adds no new behavioral context. It says nothing about pagination behavior, filtering scope, or rate limits beyond the structured hints.

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 two-word-plus-fragment format is extremely compact and front-loaded with the resource. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a list tool with three undocumented parameters and no routing guidance among dozens of siblings, the description leaves key operational information (filtering, pagination) entirely unaddressed.

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?

All three parameters (ids, limit, offset) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The only named fields ('status, item count, update time') are response attributes, not the inputs, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.

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 fragment names the resource (product feeds) and hints at the returned attributes (status, item count, update time), so an agent can infer it is a list operation. However, there is no verb and no differentiation from the many sibling list tools (webmaster_list_feeds, direct_list_campaigns, etc.), leaving the exact scope ambiguous.

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?

'Read-only' is a safety trait, not usage guidance. Nothing states when to call this versus webmaster_list_feeds or webmaster_get_feed, and no preconditions or context of use are given.

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