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

Annotations already declare readOnly, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: comments default OFF, moderation prerequisite before enabling, and the anti-spam ceilings (CommentMaxLength/Links/PerDay, FollowsPerDay, ReportsPerDay) with 'unset fields mean platform defaults'. This is rich context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then spends its length on disambiguation against a large sibling set. Long but dense, and the exclusions carry real selection value; a few clauses could be tightened.

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 field getter with no output schema, the description covers scope, defaults, and boundaries well enough to call it correctly. The absence of output format detail is acceptable given there is no output schema to explain.

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?

Only one parameter (title_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail for title_id, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ONLY the 'Social' field of TitlePublicConfigurationModel'. It scopes the read precisely and separates itself from the operational-data siblings, so an agent can tell it apart from save_social and the Social* collection tools.

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?

Explicitly delineates what this tool does NOT cover: friends, notification inbox, and the likes/favorites/follows/comments/reports operational data in the shared Social* collections, plus admin actions like reviewing reports. This is strong when-not guidance, though it never names the write counterpart (save_social) as the alternative, leaving that to inference.

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