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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it requires read:inbox, is free, and changes nothing. It still omits pagination, ordering, or rate-limit behavior, but those gaps are minor for this tool.

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 two compact sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes permission and mutation context without waste. Every clause adds relevant information for invocation.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, required scope, and side-effect profile. It does not describe return shape or pagination, but no output schema exists and the complexity is low, so it is nearly complete.

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%, and the single accountId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates that it can be optionally filtered by accountId, adding only a small amount of clarity beyond the structured field.

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: 'List comments on your posts.' It distinguishes this from sibling inbox tools like mentions, messages, and reviews implicitly, though it does not explicitly name those 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 states the basic use case and an optional filter, and includes the required permission scope. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over sibling inbox listing tools such as soclo_inbox_mentions or soclo_inbox_list, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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