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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call is free (no credit spend), it requires the read:posts scope, and it returns both an expectedActionHash and any native over-cap question. Those extras matter for how the agent proceeds afterward. It stops short of describing pagination behavior (the limit cap of 50), which would have completed the picture.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the resource, then the mode switch, then cost and auth. Zero filler sentences; every phrase adds information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (states, expectedActionHash, over-cap question), what it costs, and what auth it needs. Only the pagination contract is missing, which is a real but modest gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It handles the non-obvious one well (history:true returns completed/rejected instead of the active queue) but says nothing about limit or offset, whose caps (50, 100000) and defaults are not in the schema either. Partial compensation, not full.

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: reading the owner's Autopilot post approval queue, and enumerates the states it returns (pending, approved, scheduled, failed). It also carves out a distinct scope from the sibling soclo_autopilot_read/status tools by tying the queue to expectedActionHash and over-cap questions, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to switch modes: use history:true for completed/rejected posts, implying the default is the active queue. It does not name the downstream siblings (soclo_autopilot_approve_draft, soclo_autopilot_reject_draft) it exists to feed, so routing is implied by the expectedActionHash mention rather than spelled out.

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