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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds meaningful context by stating 'no signature' (no auth/signing requirement) and explaining that caller drives caller-dependent results. It stops short of describing pagination or response size.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the safety/auth note, then the optional parameter. No filler or redundancy.

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-item fetch with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and the optional parameter's effect. It could say more about what 'full details' includes beyond endorsers and staked amounts, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents caller and message_id fully. The description adds only the rationale for caller ('the account whose view to read'), which is a modest gain over the schema's 'run the query as'. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (get full details) and resource (one paid Social post), and names the payload fields (endorsers, staked amounts). The 'paid' qualifier distinguishes it from the non-paid sibling geode_social_get_details_for_message, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 by the 'paid post' scoping and the note that caller is for caller-dependent results, but the description never states when to pick this over geode_social_get_details_for_message, geode_social_get_account_paid_messages, or geode_social_get_paid_feed. No explicit exclusions.

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