Read a hashtag timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying 'Public statuses' (excluding non-public ones) and explaining that hashtags serve as the primary discovery mechanism, which goes beyond what annotations state and helps the agent understand the tool's role.

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 only two sentences, with the core action stated upfront and the contextual rationale following. Every sentence earns its place, no redundancy, and it's well-structured for quick parsing.

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 tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and why it matters. It doesn't explain return formats or pagination details, but those are handled by the schema and annotations, so the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, including filtering options (all, any, none), pagination (limit, max_id), and account selection. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it relies entirely on the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 returns public statuses carrying a specific hashtag, with a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes hashtag-based timelines from other timeline tools by its subject matter, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_home_timeline or get_local_timeline, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage for discovering conversations around a hashtag, noting it's 'the main way to find a conversation' on Mastodon. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of cases where other timeline tools would be more appropriate, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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