List your pinned feeds

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. The description adds useful ordering behavior and the fact that returned values are URIs consumable by other tools, but says nothing about pagination, empty results, or how many pins to expect.

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 filler; the resource and its scope come first and the follow-up routing second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description does convey the return shape (feeds and lists, ordered, as URIs), which is the key missing piece an agent would otherwise have to guess. Minor gap: no indication of result volume or what an empty pin set looks like.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'account' handle semantics, the default behavior, and the list_accounts pointer. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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?

Names a specific resource (the feeds and lists pinned to a connected account's home screen) with an implicit list verb and adds the ordering scope ('in order'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_feed, get_lists, and search_feeds, which cover non-pinned or single-item retrieval.

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?

States the downstream action explicitly: 'Pass any of the returned URIs to get_feed or get_list_posts,' which routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over siblings like get_lists or search_feeds (e.g., only when pinned content is wanted), leaving that to inference.

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