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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description's only behavioral claim, 'Read only.', merely restates readOnlyHint. It adds nothing on what status values are returned, whether the operation is terminal, or how the caller should poll.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and zero filler. The trailing 'Read only.' sentence is largely redundant against readOnlyHint, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 tool with rich annotations this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what the returned state looks like (e.g. pending/running/completed/failed) and whether polling is expected. It also omits that this is scoped to leads search and writing jobs.

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%, but the schema does constrain opId to a UUID with a regex pattern, so type/format is handled structurally. The description contributes only that opId identifies the search or writing step being queried, which is modest additional meaning but does not address where the opId originates.

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 and object: 'Read the state of a search or writing step by its opId', which tells an agent this is a status-polling read keyed on an operation ID. The gap is sibling differentiation: it never says it is the leads-domain status tool, so an agent facing soclo_creators_op_status, soclo_ads_operation_status, or so on has no textual basis for choosing between them.

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?

'By its opId' implies the ID comes from a prior operation-starting call, so polling usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no named counterpart tool (soclo_leads_find / soclo_leads_draft) whose opId it consumes, and no guidance on repeated polling or when to stop.

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