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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behaviour, so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: connection status ('active or needs reconnecting'), last-sync timing, and the important downstream effect that canPublish/publishWith determines whether and how posting can happen. It could have stated explicitly that it returns at most `limit` accounts in a single call, which is why it isn't 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?

The whole definition is one long sentence with layered colons and parentheticals, making it hard to scan. The most actionable instruction, checking this when data is empty, is buried at the end instead of being front-loaded. It is dense rather than bloated, but the structure needs work.

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?

With an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return shapes, and it still helpfully explains the non-obvious canPublish and publishWith fields. The diagnostic use case is covered. Minor remaining gap: it does not state pagination or single-page behaviour, though the limit parameter implies it.

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 `limit` and `brandId` are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the single-brand omission rule. The description mentions the brand implicitly but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 definition gives a specific verb and resource ('marketing accounts connected to the brand') and enumerates the channels and returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby list tools such as list_brands or get_brand, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

It gives a concrete triggering condition: 'Check this when performance data or published posts come back empty.' That is real when-to-use guidance, especially useful for diagnosing broken connections. It omits when-not-to-use or a direct pointer to an alternative list tool, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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