home_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses quota cost (1 unit) and implies pagination via token parameters, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'home feeds' entail (e.g., content format, update frequency), leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by quota information. It avoids redundancy but could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it states the action and quota cost but lacks details on output format, error cases, or sibling differentiation. Given the 5 parameters and absence of structured behavioral hints, it should provide more context about what 'home feeds' returns and usage scenarios.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying pagination and region/niche filtering, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get home feeds') and scope ('region-wise & niche-wise'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on channels, videos, or search. However, it doesn't specify what a 'home feed' contains (e.g., content types) or how 'niche-wise' differs from region filtering, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search', 'trending', or channel-specific tools. The description mentions quota cost but doesn't explain use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with siblings, offering minimal contextual direction.

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