Read a custom feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral detail of its own - nothing about paging, rate limits, or what happens with an invalid feed URI - so it contributes essentially nothing beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words; the core action and the required identifier format are front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence is pure routing value.

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 listing tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs to call it. The only notable gap is that `cursor` carries no description anywhere, leaving the paging mechanism only half-explained.

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 75%, so the schema already documents `feed` (URI or link), `limit` (max 300, pages automatically, default 30) and `account`. The description merely restates the accepted `feed` formats and says nothing about `cursor` or pagination beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb (Read) plus resource (posts from a custom feed), and it names the accepted identifier formats (at:// URI or bsky.app link). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling feed tools (search_feeds, get_pinned_feeds, get_list_posts).

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to search_feeds for discovering a feed and get_pinned_feeds for the caller's own feeds, which is the key prerequisite for invoking this tool. It does not, however, contrast itself with other post-reading siblings like get_timeline or get_list_posts.

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