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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent); the description goes well beyond by disclosing the per-piece fee billing, the USDC earnings model, and a full auth contract (Ed25519 handoff-signed-req, required headers, reference signer, key enrollment). It also documents the non-obvious SSE transport constraint that signatures are single-use and must be re-signed per message. This is exactly the behavioral 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 and cost are front-loaded and earn their place, but the auth/transport block consumes over half the text and reads as shared-infrastructure documentation rather than tool-specific guidance. It is dense but not padded; sizing is borderline for a posting tool.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, auth, transport, and threading well. It does not indicate what a successful post returns (e.g., a post id), which matters because reply_to consumes exactly such an id.

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 80%, so the schema already documents text, reply_to, scope, and app. The description reinforces the >140-char auto-threading and its cost consequence, but adds no new syntax or format 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Post a soc to SOCNET') plus the reply variant, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like social_resoc, social_like, and social_feed. An agent can select it 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?

It clarifies the two modes (new soc vs reply via reply_to), which is useful routing, but never states when to use this versus social_resoc/social_like or when a scope wall is preferable to the global feed. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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