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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it clarifies the billing model (X charges the publisher's own account, no platform credits), which affects decision-making. It doesn't explain return shape or freshness, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core purpose and the enumerated fields, followed by a billing note that earns its place by preventing a common misconception. Slightly dense single sentence, but no filler.

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-parameter overview with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields well and flags the billing behavior. Enough to call correctly; lack of return-format/freshness detail is a minor gap since no output schema exists.

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) at 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description does not add format or sourcing detail for title_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents the sole parameter.

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?

The description names a specific resource (the Title's X account) and enumerates the concrete data points it returns (connection status, posts vs daily cap, spend, pending approvals, inbox). This is far beyond restating the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_social or get_social_inbox, which keeps it at 4.

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 — this is a dashboard snapshot for a single title's X account — but the description never says when to use it instead of get_social or get_social_inbox, nor states prerequisites (does the title need a connected account first?). No explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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