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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only 'connected' targets are listed and that output includes 'identifiers and metadata,' but it does not disclose potential caveats such as pagination, ordering, or authorization requirements.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every phrase adds value.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It states what is listed and what is returned, so no critical information is missing for this straightforward list operation.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter workspace_id with a description. The tool description does not add further meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it 'Lists connected social channels and email/newsletter targets for a Postly workspace' and specifies the return type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like postly_list_posts and postly_list_workspaces by identifying the exact resource (publishing targets).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion scenarios or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, so usage context is absent.

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