get_friend_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It only states the authentication requirement but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a tool retrieving a feed, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. Every word is essential with no extraneous content. It is appropriately 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?

Given that there are three optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the feed's content and pagination. It does not mention that results are paginated, how min_id/max_id work, or what each checkin object looks like. The description is incomplete for a feed retrieval tool.

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, so the schema already documents them well. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. 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 it retrieves the 'friend check-in feed' for the authenticated user. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'friend check-in feed' are specific and differentiate from sibling tools like get_global_feed or get_local_feed. However, it could be more explicit about the feed containing check-ins from friends.

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 mentions the authentication requirement (UNTAPPD_ACCESS_TOKEN) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_global_feed or get_local_feed. There is no mention of applicable scenarios or limitations.

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