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. It discloses that results are returned 'in newest-first order along with the total count,' that it filters by author, and that it spans 'all apps.' It does not go into rate limits or auth, but 'View' clearly signals a read-only operation and the key behavioral traits are covered.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the wrapper relationship, return ordering, and a clear use case. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a read-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, ordering, count, and cross-app scope. It does not fully describe the shape of each returned post, but it gives enough behavioral context for an agent to invoke it correctly for author-focused queries.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the conceptual framing of an 'author filter' and total count, but it does not add per-parameter meaning 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'View everything a specific address has written on the BSV social graph.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from peck_feed by calling itself a 'convenience wrapper over peck_feed with author filter,' so an agent can clearly tell what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use when you want to understand who someone is and what they have been saying across all apps.' It also implies the alternative (peck_feed) by describing this as a wrapper, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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