read_filtered_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation but gives no details about pagination behavior (even though cursor is a parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or error scenarios. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 concise with three short lines. The first sentence clearly states the main purpose, and the parameter descriptions are directly useful. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the parameter docs could be integrated into a single sentence.

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 lacks an output schema, and the description does not specify the return format or content (e.g., list of posts, fields returned). There is no mention of errors or edge cases. For a read operation with pagination, the description is incomplete.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema: it explains filter_id as 'ID of the filter' and cursor as 'Pagination cursor from a previous response.' This is helpful, but it does not provide additional constraints or format details. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 posts filtered by a keyword. However, it does not differentiate it from similar sibling tools like read_feed or read_following_feed, which could cause confusion. The verb 'Read' is specific, but the resource is not distinguished.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when-not to use it or what prerequisite information might be needed (e.g., a filter must exist first). The description implies usage but lacks explicit direction.

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