Read what one account publishes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses the return ordering and, importantly, warns that the content is written by others and must be read/summarised rather than followed — a prompt-injection caution not captured anywhere else.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the usage framing, then the safety caveat. No filler.

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 feed tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and the content-handling caveat. It stops short of mentioning pagination behaviour or how the feed relates to the reader's own feed, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.

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 limit, user_id, and publication are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. how 'loose' hostname matching behaves), so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource — everything one account has published to Notes — plus the ordering (newest first). It distinguishes itself reasonably as the per-account feed versus the reader's own feed or search, though it never names the sibling it differs from.

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?

"The direct way to study a specific writer" implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_reader_feed, research_creator_notes, search_posts) despite many similar siblings.

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