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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds that the tool is free, never starts Autopilot work, requires read:posts, and returns results as they arrive for a default 7-day window. This covers cost, side effects, permission scope, and data freshness, which are exactly the extra behavioral details an agent 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core read operation comes first, followed by scope, defaults, cost, side-effect guarantee, and permission needs. Every clause adds useful selection or invocation information, with no filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only timeline tool with no output schema, the description supplies sufficient context about what is returned, the time window, cost, side effects, and required permission. An agent can decide to call it and set the day window without needing more.

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 explain the lone optional parameter. It does useful work by stating the default of 7 days and the maximum of 31 days, though it does not explicitly name the 'days' parameter or explain the minimum.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read the verified customer timeline of Autopilot work,' then narrows it to made, scheduled, and published posts with results. It implicitly separates itself from action-oriented siblings like soclo_autopilot_run by stating 'never starts work,' but it does not explicitly name soclo_autopilot_read or soclo_autopilot_status as alternatives.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this is a free read of the Autopilot results timeline, defaults to 7 days, and requires read:posts. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over soclo_autopilot_read or soclo_autopilot_status, but 'never starts work' helps steer agents away from soclo_autopilot_run.

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