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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does a strong job: it reveals repost marking, embed types, opaque cursor semantics, credit costs per result, the fact that empty results and failures are not charged, and cache behavior. It does not cover every possible behavior like rate limits or explicit output shape, but the provided details add meaningful transparency.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core resource and content type, then adds cost and caching details in short, scannable sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers content, repost markers, embeds, cursor pagination, costs, failure billing, and cache behavior. It stops short of describing the exact response envelope or error format, which would make it fully complete in the absence of an output schema.

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 baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the description. The description adds some value by explaining the opaque cursor, cache hit behavior, and per-result billing, which relate to cursor, cache, and limit, but it does not need to restate the schema's already thorough parameter docs.

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 identifies the resource as an 'Author feed' containing posts and reposts, with reposts marked via isRepost and various embed types. It differentiates from sibling tools like bluesky_profile and bluesky_post_details by emphasizing feed-level listing behavior, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list'.

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 useful context about caching and cost, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as bluesky_profile or bluesky_post_details. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Author feed' rather than explicitly routed with when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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