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

With annotations already covering the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, the description adds substantial operational context: the source.enabled gate, privacy constraints (no author, handle, title or post text retained; link_withheld), the sentiment state machine (reading / too_little_coverage / feed_gap) with rating thresholds, sole_trader behavior, and the explicit statement that readings never feed the risk score. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

The content is largely front-loaded and almost every clause carries real information, but it is delivered as a dense wall of run-on sentences mixing enumeration behavior, privacy rules, sentiment semantics and edge cases. It is exhausting to parse and would benefit from structure, which is the definition's main weakness.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description documents return shapes in detail: list mode (each company's newest reading or latest null) and detail mode (reading fields, the newest 100 items with item_key, platform, url, published_at, language, sentiment label, matched_name), plus edge cases for sole traders and feed gaps. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, and limit/offset receive no additional meaning in the description. The description does add real value for days (default 30, newest-first) and node_id (omit to list companies), so it earns the baseline but not more.

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 (social/forum chatter about book companies and watched persons) and a specific source (a licensed social listening source), which cleanly separates it from siblings like company_news, company_events and developments. The two operating modes (list companies without node_id, return daily readings with node_id) are stated up front.

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?

Clearly explains the two invocation modes and the key precondition (source.enabled must be true or nothing current is read), plus the 404 for companies outside the book/watch list. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling (e.g., company_news) for news-style content, so the agent must infer routing rather than being told.

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