get_profile_feed

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: no credentials are sent, upstream page-read counts, upstream-controlled page size, item and character limits, and cursor semantics. These details give the agent an accurate mental model of side effects and pagination.

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?

Three compact sentences deliver high-value constraints without filler. The core qualifier 'anonymous public profile feed' is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact.

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 description is strong on behavior, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. However, it omits essential parameter-selection guidance for a tool with 0% schema-described parameters, leaving an agent uncertain how to form a valid request.

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% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate by explaining cursor, handle, and user_id. It does not clarify whether these are alternatives, combinable, or which is required in practice; the only cursor mention is output-oriented ('next_cursor indicates continuation').

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 identifies the resource as an 'anonymous public profile feed' and the function as retrieving that feed. It adds useful qualifiers like 'no credentials sent' and processing limits, but it does not explicitly contrast siblings such as get_user_profile or list_public_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 gives clear context: this tool is for anonymous, public, unauthenticated profile feed retrieval. It does not state exclusions or point to alternatives, so it leaves some routing to inference rather than fully selecting among siblings.

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