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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds rich context: the exact semantics of followersGained (net followers, gains minus losses, measured from the last snapshot at or before window start), window-echo fields, source-aware freshness fields, and the special handling of accounts without snapshots. It also specifies that includeHealth=true surfaces syncStale and tokenExpired conditions, which are actionable behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 dense paragraph with nested parentheticals and long clauses, making it hard to scan. Most content is informative for a tool with no output schema, but the front-loaded verb phrase quickly gives way to a wall of detail, and better formatting would improve readability without losing substance.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, edge cases (accounts without snapshots), window semantics, and health flags. It covers these completely enough that an agent can understand what it will get and how parameters change the result.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly for 'days' (range 7-365, default 30, and the snapshot-based measurement semantics) and 'includeHealth' (adds health per account and even to accountsWithoutSnapshots). 'brandId' is only implied by 'the brand's,' leaving one parameter without explicit semantics, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 and resource ('Get the brand's connected accounts') and lists the key returned dimensions (followers, following, followersGained, totalVideos, reach, source, freshness fields). It also distinguishes itself from a day-by-day curve tool with 'Does not return a day-by-day follower curve,' making its scope unambiguous against nearby siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the detailed description of what is returned (account-level followers and health/freshness), and the negative scope statement hints at an alternative for follower curves. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named sibling to choose between, so an agent must infer the context.

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