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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious traits: all four views are free (no spend), balance is scoped to this session, and status is the prerequisite for retry after 502/503. That is genuine context beyond the structured fields.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the 'Free checks' hook, with each view's purpose in a compact parenthetical. Dense but organized; the parenthetical for transactions is slightly overloaded but 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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: that these calls are free, that balance is session-scoped, and that status should precede a retry. Complete enough for a zero-required-param read tool.

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% and each parameter already documents its view and meaning (limit = page size, cursor = next_cursor, request_id = receipts for one request). The description largely restates the view enum rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 four concrete read views (balance, transactions, status, freshness) and their scope, which is far more than the bare name 'socialcrawl_account' conveys. It is distinguishable from siblings like estimate/request/collect, which are about running work rather than reading state. It stops short of a single crisp verb+resource framing, but the enumeration is precise.

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 explicit actionable guidance for one view: read status before retrying a 502/503, which is a real when-to-use rule. It also labels all checks as free, implicitly steering the agent here rather than to paid siblings. It does not state when-not-to-use or contrast against sibling tools by name.

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