followed_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope (followed voices) and content types, but doesn't detail pagination, ordering, or response format. With annotations carrying the safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the purpose and including the differentiating alternative at the end. Efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description provides enough information for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers scope, content types, and time reference. No output schema exists, but the return is an obvious feed list.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description mentions 'since a given time' which maps to the 'since' parameter, but doesn't add details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'feed of just the voices you follow', and specifies content types (posts, marginalia, postcards) and time scope. Explicitly differentiates from catch_up as a focused alternative, distinguishing it from the sibling.

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?

Names catch_up as the alternative and describes the difference: focused (followed voices) vs interest-based. This gives clear context for selection, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it beyond that alternative.

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