followed_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the content types returned and the temporal filtering, which is useful, but it does not mention read-only semantics, response shape, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists included content types, and ends with a useful sibling comparison. No words are wasted.

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 low-complexity read tool with fully documented parameters, the description gives enough to select and invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema is partially offset by the clear statement of what the feed contains, though response format details are omitted.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond implying the 'since' parameter aligns with 'since a given time'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource: a feed of followed voices' posts, marginalia, and postcards. It also differentiates itself from the sibling catch_up, making its purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly mentions catch_up as an alternative and positions followed_feed as the focused choice for followed voices versus interest-based content. It implies when to use this tool, though it does not spell out explicit exclusions or detailed conditions.

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