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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns data 'exactly as reported' with no transformation, and critically warns that a missing value is NOT zero, which is essential interpretation guidance. 'Free' also adds cost context not in the annotations.

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 the core purpose before the caveats. 'Read-only and free' mildly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, but every other sentence (interpretation caveat, connection boundary) earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it says what is returned (sources and recent matched orders) and how to interpret gaps. The only missing piece is any note on recency or pagination of the 'recent' orders, which is left undefined.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly conveys that the read is unconditional and scopeless.

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 names a specific verb (Read) and resource (connected sales sources plus recent matched orders), and lists concrete examples of sources. It distinguishes itself from the accounts connect/disconnect tools by stating those happen in the app. However, it does not explicitly separate itself from close siblings like soclo_sales_orders or soclo_sales_order, which could confuse an agent about which read to pick.

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 establishes a boundary by saying connecting or disconnecting a source happens in the Soclo app, which implicitly tells the agent not to look for that here. But it gives no positive when-to-use condition and never points to the alternative read tools (sales_orders, sales_attribution) when the agent wants a different cut of the data.

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