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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It still adds real value beyond them: a permission prerequisite (separate read:sales scope), a data-semantics caveat (totals scoped to the returned order window, currencies kept separate), pagination mechanics, and cost ('free'). Only rate-limit or failure behavior is unstated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then permission, data caveat, and pagination. Each sentence carries distinct information; only the cursor sentence overlaps meaningfully with the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: auth scope, pagination continuation, the meaning of returned totals, and that it is free. Returned fields beyond nextCursor are unspecified, but the annotations carry the safety profile and the tool is low complexity.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's cursor explanation largely restates the schema's 'nextCursor from the previous native list'. It adds the round-trip workflow (list returns nextCursor, pass it back as cursor) but no new syntax or format detail for limit.

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 combination ('Read the app's website customers'), which distinguishes it from adjacent sales siblings like soclo_sales_orders, soclo_sales_bookings, and soclo_sales_attribution. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is by resource noun rather than by routing language.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the read:sales permission requirement signals a prerequisite, and the pagination sentence implies iterative calling. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative sales list tools an agent might confuse this with.

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