get_read_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It notes pagination via page and per_page parameters but omits details like ordering, rate limits, or whether results are scoped to the current user. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 brief and front-loaded: first sentence defines the tool, second adds a use case, then a clear parameter list. No extraneous content.

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 simple paginated read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and a use case. It lacks mention of ordering or relation to sibling tools like mark_entries_read, but remains mostly complete.

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%, but the description explains both parameters: page (default 1) and per_page (default 50, max 100). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and defaults.

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 'Get read (already-read) article entries from Feedbin' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_unread_entries and get_starred_entries by specifying the subset as 'read'.

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 says 'Useful for reviewing recently-read articles' implying a use case, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_entries or get_unread_entries, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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