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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant; however 'no signature' adds genuine auth context beyond the annotations. It still does not mention pagination, result size, or return format, so added value is modest.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause on `caller` is a slight redundancy given the schema, but overall it is efficient.

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 two-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not complete: it omits any return-shape or pagination note (no output schema exists) and contains the keyword required/optional inconsistency. It covers the essentials without fully resolving ambiguity.

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. The description usefully expands `caller` beyond the schema's 'SS58 to run the query as' by explaining it selects whose view is read, but it also says the feed is 'optionally filtered by a keyword' while the schema marks `keyword` as required — a mismatch that weakens the parameter guidance.

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 and resource ('Get caller's paid (promoted) Social feed') and clarifies the 'paid/promoted' terminology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like geode_social_get_public_feed or geode_social_get_account_paid_messages, leaving the boundary to inference from names.

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 context by noting the feed is 'paid (promoted)' and can be keyword-filtered, but never states when to use this tool versus the public feed or account paid-messages siblings, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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