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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds information they don't carry: the required auth scope ('read:inbox'), that the call is free, and that it changes nothing. The note that there is no reply for mentions usefully bounds behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the scope and filter come first. The final sentence is slightly cryptic ('There is no reply for mentions') but still earns its place as a capability constraint.

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 read-only, single-optional-param list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies auth scope, cost, mutation behavior, and filtering. Sufficient to invoke correctly, though return shape is left unaddressed.

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 accountId is fully documented with its own cross-reference to soclo_accounts_list. The description only restates the optional filter, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 fits.

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+resource ('List posts or stories that mention you') with scope ('optionally filtered by accountId'). This clearly differs from siblings like soclo_inbox_comments, soclo_inbox_messages, and soclo_inbox_reviews, though no sibling is explicitly named for contrast.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('Needs read:inbox') and a capability boundary ('There is no reply for mentions'), which implies when this tool applies versus response tools. However, it never names an alternative tool or states explicit when-not conditions.

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