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

Adds billing semantics the annotations cannot convey: enabling inside an existing paid period charges nothing now, otherwise the quoted price is charged immediately, and renewal recurs every 30 days until disabled; disabling is immediate and free. It also prescribes recovery behavior after an ambiguous outcome (re-read state, do not auto-retry), which is exactly the kind of context a non-idempotent, destructive write needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then the cost and safety constraints follow in a tight sequence with no filler. The billing sentences are dense and the trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' pointer is opaque, but nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world pricing mutation with no output schema and 0% param documentation, the description covers cost, recurrence, approval gating, concurrency token, idempotency key, and failure recovery. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 coverage is 0%, yet the description still explains what matters: confirm:true is gated on owner approval, expectedStateHash comes from the prior read, clientRequestId must be retained, and monthlyCredits is the quoted price with its renewal cadence. Only the enabled flag and the exact requirement of monthlyCredits are left partly implicit.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (Ads Watch) scoped to the account, which an agent can immediately distinguish from read-oriented siblings such as soclo_ads_watch_read. The name/title mapping to the described behavior is exact.

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 a clear precondition chain: quote first via soclo_ads_watch_read or an unconfirmed enable request, surface monthlyCredits and renewal terms, obtain owner approval before confirm:true, and never retry automatically. It stops short of explaining when to use this versus the sibling soclo_ads_watch_ask_first_set and soclo_ads_watch_auto_pause_set tools, which an agent would still have to infer.

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