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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is public with no auth, and it explains the unlinked-handle edge case where posts are collected and PARKED, crediting retroactively upon linking. This is significant behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: what it does, what to pass, what comes back, when to use it, the follow-up tool, the unlinked behavior, and auth status. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and there is no redundant 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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and simple read-only annotations, the description is complete. It covers input, output fields, use cases, edge-case behavior, public access, and the recommended next step, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

The only parameter, 'who,' is described as either a Rokha page handle or an X handle, which fully clarifies the expected input format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this description carries the entire burden and does so effectively.

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 opens with 'THE ROWS BEHIND AN ACCOUNT'S SEED TOTAL,' immediately identifying the tool's resource and purpose. It then specifies exactly what is returned: per-post earnings, engagement units, views, and scoring reason, and it differentiates itself from seeds_explain by positioning that tool as the follow-up drill-down.

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 states when to use the tool: for 'justify my last posts' or a disputed total. It also directs the agent to the next appropriate action, drilling into a row with seeds_explain, which gives clear routing guidance beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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