get_activity_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds ordering (newest first), default-scope behavior including the empty-feed case, and the shape of the return object. It repeats 'Read-only' from the annotations rather than adding to it, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose, then scope, then return shape, then sibling disambiguation — good ordering with little waste. The return-shape sentence is justified only because there is no output schema; otherwise it is slightly dense at four sentences.

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?

Annotations cover safety and the schema covers all four parameters, so the description only needs to add scope and behavior — which it does, including the empty-feed edge case and response keys. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing, though rate limits or ordering guarantees for large offsets go unmentioned.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema doesn't: the semantic distinction that omitting user_id/username yields the followed-users feed and passing either targets a single user. limit/offset are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get recent social activity events') and enumerates the event types (status changes, ratings, reviews, list updates). It also names the sibling tools it is not (get_reading_journal, get_user_library(has_review=true)), making the boundary clear without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the default scope (feed of followed users, empty if you follow nobody) and the condition to override it (pass user_id or username for one user's activity). It also routes to better-fitting alternatives for notes/quotes/progress and review texts, so when-not-to-use is covered.

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