get_global_feed

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: high rate-limit cost, authorization limitations, and a specific error message. It implies read-only behavior and polling strategy, though it could mention response format.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose, then critical usage notes. Every word earns its place.

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 feed tool with no output schema, the description covers rate limits, authorization, and polling strategy. It lacks description of returned data structure, but the purpose is common enough to infer. Score 4 reflects minor incompleteness.

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 descriptions already document limit, max_id, min_id. The description adds contextual value (rate limit, min_id polling) but does not elaborate param syntax beyond schema. Baseline 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 'Retrieve the global public check-in feed (The Pub).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical alias disambiguates it from sibling tools like get_local_feed and get_friend_feed.

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: 'High rate-limit cost' and 'prefer min_id polling to fetch only new check-ins,' plus a warning about authorization. Stops short of naming alternative tools explicitly but gives actionable advice.

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