pfm_get_account_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the scope (every post, including non-Post-for-Me), the permission requirement ('feeds' permission), and the optional analytics via expand. It does not describe error behavior or return structure, but it provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope, followed by a practical usage tip and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's core behavior, permission requirement, supported platforms, and the expand option. It leaves pagination and filtering details to the schema, which is acceptable. It could mention return format, but the absence of an output schema makes this less critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a usage example for the expand parameter ('Pass expand=['metrics']'), which reinforces the schema, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already documents. The addition is minor, so a 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as the social media feed for a connected account, with the scope 'every post made under that account.' It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by noting it includes posts not created through Post for Me, which differentiates pfm_get_account_feed from pfm_get_posts.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (retrieving the full account feed), a prerequisite (requires 'feeds' permission), and a list of supported platforms. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the distinction from Post-for-Me-only posts implies the difference from pfm_get_posts.

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