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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description reinforces it ('Read-only') and adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the returned fields, that only these accounts can receive a post, and that account provisioning is out of band. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, which is the remaining gap.

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 English text is front-loaded and dense: purpose, return contract, usage boundary, and safety hint in three sentences. The trailing French sentence restates the same content for bilingual agents, which adds length but not new information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields returned (id, uuid, provider, name, authorization status). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage on the sole parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents workspace_uuid fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully-described single parameter.

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+resource (list connected social accounts) and scopes it to a workspace, enumerating the supported providers. It also names the sibling it pairs with (create_draft_post) and the sibling that owns its complement (list_workspaces, via the schema), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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 tells the agent the returned `id` is the value create_draft_post expects, and states the exclusion that connecting a new account happens in PurrPlan, not here. Clear context and a routing rule, though it does not spell out the condition (e.g. 'call this before creating a post') as a standalone when-to-use statement.

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