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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is a read-only audit report, it discloses the derived bio-link formats (utm_source/utm_medium/utm_campaign, and ct=sf-social-<platform> for apps), and it notes the call is 'Free'. It does not describe response shape, pagination, or what happens when an account is unchecked, so it clears the lowered bar without exceeding it.

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?

Nearly all content earns its place (the UTM and ct formats are precise and useful), and the reporting scope is front-loaded. However it is delivered as one very long run-on sentence with nested parentheticals ('(and a Google Play link when you pass the package name)') that make it hard to parse at a glance. Density without padding, but poor structure.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is substantially complete: it enumerates the returned sections and the conditional bio-link variants, which is the main thing an agent needs in order to interpret results. Only the concrete return shape and the meaning of 'unchecked' vs 'missing' are left implicit.

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 already 100% for the single optional playPackage parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of supplying it — a Google Play link is generated alongside the App Store link — which the schema text alone does not state. That is meaningful added semantics for an optional parameter.

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 the specific resource — the founder's TikTok and Instagram state — and enumerates the exact payload: audit status (ready, unfinished, missing, unchecked), whether organic posts are pending, per-platform bio links, and the Meta business portfolio/Page used for boosting. That is far more than the bare name 'social_setup' conveys and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like boost_plan or analytics. It loses a point only because the opening phrase ('Where ... stand') is an oblique verb rather than a direct statement of the operation.

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?

The only routing guidance is 'Use it in /shipfound:social (routines/social.md)', which tells the agent which workflow invokes it but not when to call it directly versus other tools, nor any preconditions. There is no when-not-to-use clause and no named alternative among the many siblings. Usage is implied through the workflow reference rather than stated.

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