Feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. The description adds that results are public tracks and that the popular mode is the one affected by genre, but it says nothing about pagination limits, ordering guarantees, or result volume.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the two modes are stated before the optional qualifier. It is efficient, if a touch too terse to carry 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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema, and only two annotations: the description covers the core selection semantics but leaves return shape, pagination behavior, and the duration filters entirely to the schema. Adequate, not complete.

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 83%, so the schema already documents page, count, genre, and both duration bounds. The description's only added semantic is that genre is meaningful in the popular mode, which the schema also states; the duration filters are never mentioned in the description.

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 concrete resource (public tracks on hearthis.at) and the two modes it serves — newest vs popular — with an optional genre narrowing. An agent can tell what it returns, though it never contrasts itself with near neighbors like get_genre_tracks or get_home_section.

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?

Usage is only implied: it reads as the browse/discovery feed, and 'optionally within one genre' hints at when to pass a genre. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search, get_genre_tracks, or get_home_section, and no exclusions.

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