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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real value on top by explaining the operational consequence (a post only reaches a platform that is connected and not needing reconnect) and that it is a read-only surface for a mutation performed elsewhere. It does not describe the shape of the returned list, so it stops short of a 5.

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, each doing distinct work: what is listed, why it matters operationally, and where connection actually happens. The key constraint is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (connected accounts and unconnected platforms) and the preconditions an agent needs before scheduling or publishing. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter projectId already documents itself as a Simplo project id from list_projects. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb+resource: lists social accounts connected to a project, plus platforms that are not connected. The scope (connected vs. not connected) is stated precisely, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or get_brand.

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?

Explicitly says to check this before scheduling or publishing, and states the hard limitation that connection/reconnection happens in the Simplo app (Brand → Channels) and cannot be done by this tool. That is both a when-to-use and a when-it-won't-help.

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