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

Annotations already declare it read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the cost ('Free') and the semantic constraint that only 'active' accounts are postable, which is behavioral information the schema does not carry.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the actionable constraints and cost. Slightly clipped/telegraphic phrasing but no wasted content.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the id handoff to create_social_post. Combined with the 'active' status rule and the free-cost note, it is complete enough to call correctly; pagination/volume behavior is the only unstated aspect.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Social brand UUID'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the brand scoping ('connected to one brand') and adds no format or sourcing 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('List the social accounts connected to one brand') and enumerates the returned fields (provider, handle, status), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors like list_social_brands or list_managed_accounts, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Gives clear downstream context: 'Only active accounts can be posted to' and 'Use the returned account ids in create_social_post,' which chains it to the posting workflow. No explicit when-not/precondition guidance, but the usage path is unambiguous.

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