webmaster_list_feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read-only' merely repeats the annotation, and no pagination, result-size, or filtering behavior is added for what is an open-world list.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the routing hint and safety note. Nothing is padded, though 'Read-only' is redundant given the annotations.

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 described. However, with host_id undocumented at 0% schema coverage and no pagination or scope behavior mentioned for an open-world list, the definition is only minimally complete.

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 0% for the single required parameter `host_id`, so the schema adds no meaning. The description does not explain what host_id is, where to obtain it, or whether it scopes the feed list, leaving the parameter undocumented in both places.

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 names the specific resource ('Product/service feeds added to a Webmaster host'), and the tool name supplies the list verb. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `webmaster_get_feed`, which retrieves details, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Usage is only implied: the pointer 'Details via `webmaster_get_feed`' hints that this is the enumeration step and the other is the drill-down, but it never states when to call this versus other webmaster list tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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