get_peer_stories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'active' scope and peer targeting, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any permission nuances; annotations carry much of the burden.

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 concise Russian sentence that directly states the action and target. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only story retrieval with strong annotations and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential scope and target, though it could be slightly richer in relating to sibling story tools.

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 single parameter 'peer' has no schema description (0% coverage) and is only typed as integer|string. The description adds that the target is a user/channel, which gives some semantic context, but it doesn't explain accepted formats such as username, phone, or channel ID.

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 states it retrieves active stories for a specific user/channel, which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from broader story tools by specifying 'specific' and 'active', though it does not explicitly mention sibling tool names.

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 phrase 'specific user/channel' implies this is the tool to use for per-peer active stories, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_stories_by_id, get_all_stories, or get_pinned_stories. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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