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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add beyond that - and it does: no cost ('Free'), no side effects on the Autopilot itself ('never starts work'), and a required scope ('Needs read:posts') that would otherwise surface only as an auth failure. It doesn't describe the paging/shape of the returned timeline, but the safety profile is well covered.

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 with verb and resource, then the id provenance, then the post-statuses it returns, with two short clarifiers on cost/scope. Every clause carries information; it is dense but not padded, though the parenthetical and semicolon packing make it slightly harder to scan.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, id provenance, return contents, absence of side effects and required scope - everything an agent needs to call it correctly. The only unaddressed item, 'days', is range-bounded in the schema and not essential to a correct invocation.

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 carries the burden. It explains planRunId well (original, not regenerated, sourced from soclo_autopilot_runs), which is the risky parameter. However the second parameter 'days' (1-31) is never mentioned, leaving its filtering semantics entirely to the bare minimum/maximum in the schema.

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 ('Read one Autopilot run'), plus the identity key it takes (original planRunId) and what the result contains (made, scheduled and published posts with results). It also positions itself against the obvious sibling by pointing to soclo_autopilot_runs as the source of the id, so an agent can distinguish read-one from list-many without opening either 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?

Explicitly says where the required planRunId comes from ('from soclo_autopilot_runs') and rules out a mistaken expectation with 'Free; never starts work' - i.e., this is inspection, not execution. It stops short of naming an alternative for related intents (e.g., status/pause/enable), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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