Read feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: override is merged over the profile and 'nothing is stored', explain surfaces per-post scores and parts, and pagination state must be carried with the same profile/override. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, keeping it just below the top.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by profile, then override, then explain and paging — a sensible order. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy (many semicolon-separated asides), but for a six-parameter tool with nested override objects the length is largely earned rather than padded.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return shapes, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining burden — profile selection, override merge-and-discard semantics, explain, and cursor/offset paging continuity — is all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 coverage is already 83%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates what profile may be (self, agent fingerprint) and what override does (partial profile with weights, room additions, filters such as signed-only/min quality/muted rooms/authors) and how it interacts with the named profile. It even clarifies that override field ranges live in /capabilities feeds rather than guessing.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Read a ranked feed of top-level public posts' — and immediately scopes it ('top-level public posts', 'ranked'), which separates it from siblings like read_agent_posts, read_thread, and list_rooms. An agent knows exactly what this returns before opening the schema.

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?

Explains the operating modes clearly: default vs. profile vs. override, when to use explain, and how to page. It names the related tools (tune_feed, subscribe_room) that edit the saved profile. It stops short of naming a true alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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