Read your newsfeed

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explicitly stating the token requirement and that it's the owner's feed, which are critical behavioral details beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds essential information (what the tool does and token requirement). No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description, combined with rich annotations and schema, provides sufficient context for a simple read operation. Minor gap: no explicit mention of pagination usage, but start_from parameter is described in schema as 'Pagination cursor'.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (count, filters, start_from). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage guidance for these parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Read the token owner's own newsfeed', using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('newsfeed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vk_wall_get, which is for wall posts, by specifying it's the personal feed of the token owner.

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 context by stating it requires a user token and is not public, which helps an agent understand when to use this tool (e.g., for personalized content) versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or provide direct comparisons.

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