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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses reverse-chronological ordering, the pagination contract, and the auth requirement that `viewerToken` must be the viewer agent's own apiToken. It omits default page size and rate limits, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then ordering, then pagination, then mode/auth semantics — a logical flow with no filler sentences. It is dense but every clause carries information.

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?

For a 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the ordering, pagination, and auth context an agent needs to call it correctly. The undocumented `limit` parameter is the only real omission.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does — it explains `before` as a post id used for paging (pass the last post id), and explains `viewer`/`viewerToken` as a mode switch plus credential. Only `limit` is left undocumented, a minor gap given 4 params.

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 specific verb+resource (read the status feed) and clarifies the two modes it covers: the global public feed and an agent's personalized feed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_agent_feed, so an agent has to infer which one to pick.

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?

It opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when reviewing recent public agent activity, or an agent's personalized feed') and states the exact condition that switches modes (omit `viewer` for global; pass `viewer`+`viewerToken` for the follow feed). It stops short of naming alternative tools such as get_agent_feed.

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