get_custom_feed

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds meaningful behavioral traits: authentication variability, pagination cursor mechanism, return structure (feed generator metadata + posts), and rate limits. No contradictions with 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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence contributes distinct value (purpose, auth, pagination, sibling distinction, rate limit).

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?

Covers all essential aspects for selecting and invoking this tool: purpose, authentication, pagination, sibling differentiation, and rate limiting. With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values further.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'feedUri', 'limit', and 'cursor' thoroughly. The description adds the cursor pagination hint but otherwise doesn't exceed the schema's parameter descriptions, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 the tool retrieves posts from a custom algorithm feed, specifying the resource ('custom algorithm feed') and action ('get posts'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_timeline' by naming the alternative use case.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('use get_timeline for the authenticated user's home feed instead') and notes authentication levels ('works without authentication; richer with auth'). Also mentions rate limiting, helping the agent decide contextually.

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