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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds real context beyond them: the manage:accounts permission requirement, the confirm-gated preview that changes nothing, the fact that existing profiles are reused, and that an interrupted run leaves an unconfirmed state. That is substantive behavioral disclosure, with no contradiction of annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scoping before prerequisites and recovery. Nearly every clause carries distinct information, though the recovery/reuse material could be marginally tighter.

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 rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: permissions, preview gating, reuse of existing profiles, and interrupted-setup recovery.

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% and both name and confirm are already documented in the schema, including the preview behavior. The description mostly restates the confirm semantics and adds only the "owner-approved" nuance, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Set up the first social profile") and pins the scope with "first" and "owner-bound profile route," which distinguishes it from sibling tools like soclo_accounts_connect. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives prerequisites (requires manage:accounts), the condition that selects preview vs write (confirm: true or nothing changes), and explicitly routes recovery to the sibling soclo_accounts_list. When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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