browse_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses error-handling behavior: unknown slugs are rejected at this layer because the upstream API silently ignores them and returns the global feed. But it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, result shape, or how limit/include_expired behave.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by parameter guidance in three tight sentences with no filler. The community discussion is somewhat long relative to the rest of the tool's surface, but every sentence carries information.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the coverage is uneven: community is well covered while limit, include_expired, and the return structure are not. An agent can invoke it, but not with full confidence about limits or result shape.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so only for `community` (11 canonical slugs, examples, rejection behavior); `limit`, `include_expired`, and `feed` receive no semantic explanation beyond their names/enums. Partial compensation of one of four parameters warrants a 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Browse Pelando's own feeds') and adds scoping detail ('optionally scoped to one community'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_deals, so the browse-vs-search distinction is left to inference.

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?

It gives real guidance on the community parameter (use one of 11 canonical slugs, use `tech-lover`/`mundo-gamer` for electronics), which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to prefer browse_feed over search_deals or list_communities, so alternative selection is not addressed.

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