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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a global, cross-app view of the social graph, the indexing starting point, and the chronological-walking behavior. It does not describe auth, rate limits, or output structure, but for a read-style browse tool the disclosed scope is substantial.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives useful indexing and filtering details. Every sentence adds relevant information, and the historical-walk tip is practical without bloat.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple feed-browsing tool, but there is no output schema and no mention of return value shape, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or how this tool relates to siblings like peck_recent and peck_search. These gaps leave an agent with some uncertainty about what to expect from the response.

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 schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter value by explaining the order=asc + since combination for historical walks, which is not explicit in the schema. This justifies the slight uplift.

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 browses the global BSV social feed, specifies the indexed data range from block 556767 onward, and lists the apps covered. It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like peck_recent, peck_trending, or peck_search.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: browsing the shared global feed with filters. It also provides a concrete usage pattern, order=asc + since, for walking history chronologically. However, it does not mention when to prefer sibling tools or provide explicit exclusions.

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