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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state ordering, freshness, default result count, pagination behavior, or any rate or auth constraints. For a feed-reading tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief, though arguably too terse given the missing parameter and behavioral context.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, read-only), but with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should clarify what 'recent' means, how 'limit' behaves, and what the feed returns. It leaves those essentials unaddressed.

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 for the undocumented 'limit' parameter. It does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving unclear whether it caps post count, has a default, or what its bounds are.

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 ('Read') and resource ('recent posts from Agent Haven'), making the basic purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings world_status and world_tasks, but the resource differs sufficiently that an agent can infer it retrieves posts rather than status or tasks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus world_status or world_tasks, nor any conditions or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the generic verb 'Read'.

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