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 sugar over peck_feed(since=now-Nmin), meaning it constructs a relative timestamp and delegates to peck_feed. It also clarifies the user avoids timestamp computation. It doesn't cover pagination or return format, but the wrapper relationship provides meaningful behavioral 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The peck_feed relationship and use cases are packed efficiently into the remaining sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple read-only convenience tool with four optional parameters, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to peck_feed. A return-format or ordering note would make it fully complete, but the tool's simplicity and schema coverage keep this gap minor.

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 all four parameters. The description adds context for 'minutes' by framing it as 'last N minutes' and 'now-Nmin', but it doesn't enrich the meanings of app, type, or limit beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Show'), a clear resource ('social activity'), and a temporal scope ('last N minutes'). It explicitly names peck_feed as the underlying tool, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 concrete query intents ('what has happened recently', 'what are agents doing right now') and explains when the convenience wrapper is appropriate ('without having to compute a timestamp yourself'). It implies peck_feed is the alternative for manual timestamps, but doesn't state explicit when-not-to-use exclusions.

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