list_feedings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state safety. It adds useful context about the returned fields (ration, status, batch scale factor, total pounds) and ordering (newest first), which goes beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't disclose potential pagination behavior (like maximum page size) or that it might require a farm context, but given the read-only annotation and that the schema already has pagination parameters, a 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes key details (ordering, fields) without excessive fluff. It's efficient and to the point, but could arguably add a mention of filtering options for completeness, which would be a minor improvement. Overall it's well-structured and concise.

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 list tool with a read-only annotation and a schema that covers all parameters, the description is largely complete: it tells what the tool does, the ordering, and the returned fields. It doesn't describe the output format (e.g., JSON array of objects), but no output schema exists and the schema is simple (flat, no nested objects). The lack of explicit alternative guidance (e.g., get_feeding) is a minor gap, so 4 is appropriate.

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 all five parameters are already described in the schema (skip, take, since, status, farm_id). The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only mentions the returned fields, not parameter specifics. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is justified, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 it lists feedings (executed mixer loads) on the farm, with a clear verb and resource, and includes the ordering (newest first) and the key fields displayed. It distinguishes itself from related tools like get_feeding (singular) by implying a list operation, and the parenthetical clarifies what a feeding is. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 implies usage (listing feedings) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_feeding, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. No reference to filtering or pagination options, though the schema provides those. Contextual signals like sibling names don't provide explicit guidance, so it relies on the user to infer this is the list counterpart to get_feeding.

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