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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral caveats such as side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits beyond what the annotations already provide.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. The key verb, object, and distinguishing output details are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate every return field, and it still highlights the most meaningful output characteristics. The input provenance is also present, so the agent has enough context to call the tool successfully.

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 only parameter, socialAccountId, is fully described and includes its source from postnitro_list_social_accounts, which is helpful provenance. Since the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description does not need to compensate for missing fields.

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 states the specific action 'Fetch' and the precise resource: a single connected social account identified by ID. It also names the distinguishing output details (scheduled-post status breakdown and token expiry), which separates it from list-oriented siblings like postnitro_list_social_accounts.

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 parameter description provides useful context by telling the agent to get the ID from postnitro_list_social_accounts, and 'single... by ID' implies this is for one-account lookups. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives such as listing all accounts or disconnecting an account, so it stops short of fully explicit guidance.

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