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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the fee (0.001 USDC with testnet waiver), the signing auth requirement, the caller becoming an admin, the wall scope page:<id>, the visitor_posts effect, and the 409 handle_taken/subject_taken errors. This is exactly the mutation-side context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then cost, errors, and auth are appended in a dense but ordered paragraph. It is long, and a few clauses (wall scope, admin note) sit deep, but virtually every sentence carries decision-relevant information for an 11-parameter setup.

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 complex creation tool with 11 params, no output schema, and non-idempotent/destructive annotations, the description covers cost, permissions, subject/voice relationships, side effects, and failure codes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema lists only in isolation — voice defaulting to agent_id, subject varying by kind (company agent / project id / author/name), and visitor_posts governing staff-only posting. That meaningfully enriches parameter understanding.

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+resource ('Create a socnet page') and immediately enumerates the four page kinds, which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_company, create_group, and create_team. An agent can tell what this produces without opening the schema.

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 gives strong kind-selection guidance: it defines what a brand/company/project/app page requires (voice, subject, requester control), making it clear which variant to create and under what preconditions. It stops short of explicitly routing to sibling tools (e.g. create_company vs create_page), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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