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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'Always uses the latest authoritative snapshot (is_latest).' It also details the return structure comprehensively (snapshot_date, array of assets with daily snapshot, trading signals, curated quotes). This goes well beyond a vague description, though it omits potential edge cases like empty feeds or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and a key behavior, the second details the output structure. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and efficiently communicates the full return shape.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description is self-sufficient. It explains what the feed is based on, the is_latest behavior, and the exact structure of the response (snapshot_date, assets with subfields). Combined with complete schema descriptions for parameters, the tool is fully specified for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters (version_info, snapshot_type, episodes_lookback), so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The tool description itself does not discuss parameters, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a personalized feed based on the user's favorite assets and followed podcasts.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('feed'), and the inclusion of 'personalized' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_market_snapshot or get_my_favorite_assets. The description also adds a distinctive behavior ('Always uses the latest authoritative snapshot') further distinguishing it.

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 the tool (when a personalized feed is needed) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that get_my_favorite_assets is for the raw list or that get_ticker_snapshot is for individual assets. This is sufficient context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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