Read SocialWTF Feed, Community, Products, or Roadmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: which sections are anonymous versus identity-gated, and that returned data is raw structured platform records. It does not cover paging or volume limits, but the output schema carries return shape.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the section enumeration and access requirements, with the sibling disambiguation last. It is dense but every clause carries information; the section list is long yet each entry is needed to disambiguate the enum values.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs to choose it: section semantics, auth gating per section, and the alternative tool. No behavioral gap remains that would cause a misinvocation.

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 100%, so both 'section' (with enum) and 'author' are fully documented in the schema itself. The description expands the meaning of each section value beyond the enum labels, but never mentions the 'author' filter or its section-specific behavior, so it adds only partial value over structured data — baseline 3.

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 ('read') plus resource, and enumerates the five sections with a parenthetical definition of each ('posts' = social feed from self/mutual friends/official, 'community' = forum + wiki, etc.). It explicitly contrasts itself with socialwtf_sentinel_chat, so an agent can distinguish raw record retrieval from AI-reasoned answers without opening either 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 per-section access conditions: 'publications' and 'trust' need no account while 'posts', 'community', and 'products' require a registered local identity. It also names the alternative (socialwtf_sentinel_chat) and the exact condition that selects it — reasoning over platform data rather than fetching raw records.

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