graze_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that ranked=True uses a popularity ranker that includes an explanation and ranked=False returns newest, plus the limit bound of 1-50. It omits pagination behavior, default ordering, what the 'explanation' contains, and whether any auth is required.

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 compact and front-loaded, delivering the tool's identity first and then the parameter semantics with no filler. It is terse to the point of being fragmentary, but every clause carries information.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the platform parameter and the shape of what comes back. It covers the ranked and limit behavior but leaves a full third of the interface — and the return format — undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for two of three parameters — both branches of ranked and the 1-50 range of limit (the schema only shows a default) — but says nothing about the platform parameter or its 'bottube' default, leaving that third parameter fully opaque.

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 identifies the resource ('Discovery feed') and explains its two modes of operation via the ranked flag, which is more than a tautology. However, it never uses a distinct verb and does not differentiate the tool from close siblings like graze_discover or graze_trending, so an agent cannot confidently tell which feed tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as graze_discover or graze_trending. The ranked semantics imply a use case (popular vs chronological browsing) but the agent must infer when this feed is preferable to its siblings.

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