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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It does so with two non-obvious facts: results are newest-first, and the library includes files added outside this tool. It omits any mention of pagination behavior, which is relevant given page/per_page exist.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how it is ordered, then the reuse guidance. The trailing 'Read only.' is mild redundancy against readOnlyHint=true but costs almost nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does name the key field (`media_file_id`) plus the ordering. A note on paging defaults (20 per page) would close the remaining gap, but the definition is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 50% – `search` and `per_page` are documented in the schema, and `type` is self-describing via its enum, leaving only `page` undocumented. The description confirms filtering and search intent but adds no format or paging detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names the specific resource (the Sociro media library), its contents (images and videos), and its ordering (newest first), and it clarifies that files added via the Sociro app are included. The verb is carried by the title rather than the sentence, but an agent can still tell this apart from import_image or list_posts.

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?

It gives concrete downstream guidance: reuse a file's `media_file_id` in create_post or update_post rather than re-uploading, which steers the agent away from import_image. It also states the two filtering modes (type, file name search) but never explicitly says when not to call it, e.g. versus import_image or list_posts.

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