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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses deduplication ('never one already found'), the credit-refund policy for empty scans, that up to 3 replies are drafted, and the asynchronous opId pattern. These are non-obvious cost and scope behaviors an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 compact sentences, each carrying distinct load: prerequisite, scope/dedupe, refund, and async follow-up. The core action and its precondition are front-loaded 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly reveals the return contract (an opId) and where to poll. It omits the scan's window/scope (e.g., which accounts or time range are searched), which an agent might want, but everything needed to invoke and follow up correctly is present.

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 100%, so credits, pricingVersion, and clientRequestId are already documented in the schema. The description's note about reusing clientRequestId largely restates the schema text, adding no new parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb ('Run one scan') plus the precise resource ('new public Reddit and X threads'), with the output being drafted replies. It is clearly distinct from soclo_conversations_scan_quote (which produces the quote) and soclo_conversations_scan_status (which polls), both of which are named or implied.

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?

States the prerequisite explicitly ('after the owner has seen the quote') and points to soclo_conversations_scan_status for polling, plus the retry rule for clientRequestId. It stops short of naming scan_quote as the way to obtain the quote, but the sequencing constraint is unmistakable.

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