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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the no-auth/public access requirement and the follower-descending sort order, plus the exact per-row shape, which annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before filtering and row shape. The enumerated row field list is dense but justifies its length given there is no output schema; nothing is wasted.

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 compensates by specifying the returned row fields, ordering, filter semantics, and auth posture. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents q, kind, and limit; baseline 3 applies. The description restates q's coverage (name, handle, about) and kind but does not mention the limit parameter or add format/syntax details beyond the schema.

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 (the socnet page directory of brands, companies, projects, apps) and pins down the ordering (most followed first). An agent can distinguish this listing tool from siblings like get_page, create_page, or list_companies without opening a 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?

Implies usage through 'directory ... most followed first' and the filter fields, but never states when to prefer this over get_page or search, nor any exclusions. 'Public, no auth' helps qualify it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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