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

Annotations already carry the read-only safety profile, but the description adds beyond them: 'no signature' discloses auth requirements and it documents pagination behavior (offset/limit, default 50, max 200). It does not describe return shape, though no output schema exists to cover that.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by safety and parameter context. Every sentence is functional with no filler, though the caller clause parenthetical is slightly dense.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth signal, the caller nuance, and pagination semantics adequately. Only the absence of any note on return/ordering content keeps it from a 5.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it clarifies caller as 'the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results)', which is more informative than the schema's terse 'to run the query as'.

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 (List) and resource (an account's paid/promoted Social posts), which an agent can distinguish from feed and message siblings at a glance. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the very similar geode_social_get_paid_feed, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies usage through 'Read-only; no signature' and explains the caller parameter's purpose, giving useful context. However, it never states when to choose this over sibling read tools like get_paid_feed or get_account_following, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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