get_public_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the API endpoints, data source (public content), and return structure. It is clear it is a read operation. However, it does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but given the detail, it is above average.

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 lengthy (approx. 30 lines) but well-structured with sections. While informative, some details in the return format could be streamlined. It is not maximally concise, but structure earns a baseline score.

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 the tool has three simple parameters and a detailed return description (despite an output schema not being fully provided), the description covers behavior, input, and output comprehensively for an agent to use effectively.

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 thoroughly explains all three parameters: count (default 5), max_id (for pagination), and q (search keyword). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 the tool retrieves the public timeline from Fanfou API, specifying two modes: normal retrieval and search. It distinguishes between them but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_home_timeline or get_user_timeline.

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 explains when to use each mode (when q is provided vs not), but lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_home_timeline or get_user_timeline. No when-not or exclusion conditions are given.

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