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

Annotations only say read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description goes further by disclosing the exact return payload name, that nothing is quoted or charged, and that no request is made. It also states the policy constraint against silent on-behalf-of invocation, which no annotation conveys.

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 the decisive fact (NOT available) and every remaining sentence routes to a specific alternative, so nothing is padding. It is slightly cluttered by the mid-paragraph aside about soclo_host_plan_prepare not returning a frames contract, which sits awkwardly between the denial and the alternatives.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned error code and confirming no side effects or charges. For a three-parameter, zero-required stub, an agent has everything needed to decide not to call it.

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 100% and the schema itself marks brief and actorId as ignored for this connection, so the params are already fully explained. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as an aspect-ratio note or what the enum implies for a no-op call, so 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?

States outright that the tool is NOT available on this connection and that calling it returns host_authored_image_plan_required with no request made. It also separates itself from the three lookalike siblings (soclo_image_generate, soclo_image_frames, soclo_host_plan_prepare) so an agent can tell what this tool is not.

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?

Explicit when-not-to-use (do not start Soclo-funded planning silently on the owner's behalf) plus a routing table of alternatives: soclo_image_generate for a host-authored still with your own scene prompt, soclo_image_frames only when an existing plan already supplied planId and a complete frames quote, and the Soclo app for native planning. Each alternative is paired with the condition that selects it.

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