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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so repeating 'Read-only' adds little, but 'no signature' supplies auth context the annotations don't cover, and the caller note explains caller-dependent results. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the optional-parameter note. Nothing is padded.

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 single-post getter with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that 'full details' leaves the returned fields unspecified, though no output schema exists to lean on.

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 real meaning for `caller` ('the account whose view to read, for caller-dependent results') beyond the schema's 'run the query as'. It does not restate the message_id format, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Get full details of one Social post'), which is clear and actionable. It does not, however, name or contrast against the very similar sibling geode_social_get_details_for_paid_message, so an agent must infer which detail-getter applies to a given message.

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 is implied (fetch details of a single post) and the caller parameter's purpose is described, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing against siblings like get_details_for_paid_message or get_replies_for_message. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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