Get latest feed rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The note that 'untrusted feed content is returned as data' adds security context beyond annotations, but the description doesn't cover size limits, ordering, or rate limits.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the phrasing is somewhat fragmented and uses negation ('not a full export, pagination claim or feed editor') which is informative but could be clearer and more direct.

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 simple read tool with full schema docs and rich annotations, the description covers the basic scope and trust model. It lacks details on sample size, ordering, and why a 'sample' differs from other feed reads, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents account and feed_id (patterns, fallback behavior, ID format). The description adds no additional parameter meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 says 'One documented v1 feed read' and 'returns last rows', which conveys a read of feed rows. But it does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like get_feed or list_feeds, and the phrase 'sample' is not precisely defined.

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 implicitly positions itself as a sample rather than a full export, editor, or pagination claim, but there are no explicit when-to-use or alternative-tool recommendations (e.g., when to use get_feed vs get_feed_sample).

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