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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description consistently adds useful behavioral context: the default window, the 7-day cap, and that it has no hourly quota. It also provides a rich inventory of returned data, though it does not discuss permissions or error behavior.

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 description is dense and front-loads the purpose, then packs the report contents efficiently. It is a long run-on sentence, which slightly hurts readability, but almost every phrase carries concrete information about the report.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the major returned fields and their semantics, including source values and tuner change attribution. Combined with complete parameter coverage and clear safety annotations, it gives the agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of 'since' and its default/limit, but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 very specific report scope: what a feed did since a time, with an explicit enumeration of contents (jobs sent, opened, thumbs, ai_skipped, alerts, tuner state, recent changes). This clearly distinguishes it from operational siblings like create_feed or find_jobs and from usage/quota tools.

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 implies when to use it by defining the report window and noting it is read-only with no hourly quota. However, it does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings such as get_usage, get_job_details, or find_jobs, so the agent must infer the best alternative.

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