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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read only; no spend' merely restates readOnlyHint and adds no new behavioral context such as result shape, pagination, or what permissions are returned.

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?

Front-loaded and short, which is good, but the final sentence is a bare URI pointer ('Fields: soclo://tools/...') that conveys nothing actionable to an agent and is wasted space.

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?

This is a potentially open-world listing tool with no output schema and a nested parameter object; the description explains neither what is returned nor how to scope the query via accountId/platform/creatorUsername. For a 6-parameter read, this is substantially under-specified.

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?

Six parameters at 50% schema description coverage, including an undocumented nested 'parameters.creatorUsername' object and an undescribed 'platform' field. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on the nested object.

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 ('List partnership permissions') that is distinguishable from the mutation sibling soclo_ads_set_partnership_ad_permission and from soclo_ads_list_partnership_ad_content. The prefix 'Soclo Ads:' adds no information, but the core statement is unambiguous.

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?

'Read only; no spend' implies this is the safe inspection counterpart to set_partnership_ad_permission, but the description never names that alternative or states explicitly when to pick each. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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