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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: pagination behavior via next_cursor and the negative scope assertion that no reply is sent, which prevents misfiring on a mutating intent.

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?

Two tight sentences, scope first, then use case, pagination, and the negative constraint. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does need to carry return/pagination context, and it does ('next_cursor'). For a zero-required-param read tool this is close to complete; only the brand_id and query parameters remain unexplained.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description only illuminates two of four parameters: workspace scoping ('selected workspace') and cursor pagination ('follow next_cursor'). It says nothing about brand_id or the free-form query override object, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 for moderate schema coverage.

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 and resource ('List social inbox messages and comments') scoped to the workspace, and explicitly negates the reply-writing sibling with 'Does not send replies.' An agent can distinguish this from aidelly_reply_to_inbox_item and the create_* tools 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?

Gives clear context ('for triage or selecting an item to reply to') and a when-not statement ('Does not send replies'), which implicitly routes the agent to the reply tool. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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