get_pinned_stories

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a small behavioral insight by clarifying that 'pinned' means 'saved in profile', which is helpful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format details, or any potential side effects beyond what annotations already convey. 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?

The description is a single short phrase, which is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks a complete sentence, a verb, and any detail about what the tool does beyond the resource. The brevity does not serve a functional purpose here.

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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It explains the core purpose but leaves out parameter usage, pagination, and relationship to sibling story tools. Although annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with the right peer format or understand limit/offset semantics.

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 schema has 3 parameters (peer, limit, offset_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of these parameters. The agent is left to infer from names alone. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, so parameter semantics are inadequately conveyed.

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 is a noun phrase ('Pinned (saved in profile) stories of the user') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It conveys what the tool returns but does not explicitly say 'get' or 'list', relying on the tool name. It does add context about 'saved in profile', which distinguishes pinned stories from other story types, but not strongly enough to differentiate among siblings like get_all_stories or get_stories_archive.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_peer_stories or get_stories_archive, nor does it explain the meaning of filtering by peer or pagination parameters. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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