Read your home timeline

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses ordering ('newest first'), scope ('your following feed'), authentication needs ('Requires a connected account'), and the time-window behavior of since_hours. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the description supplements rather than repeats them.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only high-value usage guidance. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only timeline tool, the description covers the essential context: what feed is accessed, ordering, authentication, and the main parameter behavior. There is no output schema, but the expected return type ('posts') is implicitly clear from the description and parameter schema, so the absence of explicit return-value details is not a major gap.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds some conceptual meaning for since_hours ('time window rather than a fixed number of posts'), but it does not meaningfully expand on limit, cursor, or account beyond their schema descriptions.

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 reads 'Your following feed, newest first,' which identifies the resource and behavior. It is distinguishable from related tools like get_author_feed or get_feed by the phrase 'following feed,' but it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.

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 provides clear context: it requires a connected account, and since_hours is presented as an alternative to a fixed post count for reading a time window. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the usage hints are concrete and useful.

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