Search custom feeds

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds scope ('custom feeds only, algorithmic feeds anyone can publish') and an access trait ('Works without credentials') that go beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second provides a useful onward path, and the third gives a key access detail. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the domain, the next step, and credential requirements. The lack of a note on result format is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but it is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions for q, limit, and account. The description adds little beyond the schema beyond defining the search object and credential requirement, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('custom feeds'), and clarifies the resource type as 'algorithmic feeds anyone on Bluesky can publish.' It also differentiates from get_feed by pointing there for reading a feed, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context: this tool discovers custom feeds, and it explicitly routes follow-up reading to get_feed. It also notes that it works without credentials, a useful condition. It does not explicitly contrast with search_posts or search_actors, but the resource type makes the intended use clear.

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