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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the stream is composed and chronological, entries have kinds, and it explains nuanced semantics such as per-item isStarred=false meaning the user unstarred that company since. This gives the agent a rich picture of what the feed contains beyond the basic safety 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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it defines the stream, enumerates entry kinds and their key fields, explains flag meanings, and gives practical polling and pagination guidance. It is front-loaded with the core concept and then layers detail logically.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: entry kinds, per-role fields, per-item flags, semantics, ordering, and pagination. Combined with the annotations' safety profile, the agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 the schema already documents both cursor and pageSize. The description adds a small amount of behavioral clarity around cursor usage, but it does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full load.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: it returns the user's dashboard feed as one composed stream, newest first. It enumerates the distinct kinds of entries ('item', 'job_of_the_day', 'blog', 'broadcast'), which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like get_saved_jobs or get_starred_jobs.

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 strong usage context: 'Poll this on the user's schedule to act as their notification layer' and points to the follow-up action save_job. It also explains cursor usage ('Pass nextCursor back to page deeper; omit it for the newest page'). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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