Read a list feed

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add beyond that, and it does by disclosing the 'newest first' ordering. It says nothing about how cursor-based pagination terminates or how large the default page is beyond what the schema states.

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 tight sentences, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the input-sourcing hint second. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 list-feed reader with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and where the required argument comes from, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Cursor/pagination behavior is the only meaningful omission, and that is minor here.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most fields, but the description still adds value by naming the source of the list URI (get_pinned_feeds or a link), which the schema does not. It leaves 'cursor' entirely to the schema and adds no detail on limit/account defaults.

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?

States a concrete resource ('posts from the accounts on a curated list') plus a sort order ('newest first'), which is enough for an agent to tell it apart from get_timeline, get_feed, and get_author_feed by scope. It does not explicitly name those siblings, 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?

Gives a real prerequisite for the required parameter by pointing to get_pinned_feeds or a bsky.app /lists/ link, which is actionable routing rather than generic filler. It offers no when-not-to-use guidance versus the other feed tools, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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