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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the cost trait ('Free') and scoping the result to the caller's own connected accounts.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, the resource definition follows, and the downstream usage hint closes it out.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the tool returns conceptually, what a brand is, and where its ID is used. No return-format detail is needed since no output schema exists.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline this is a 4. The description correctly notes no inputs are needed and points to the returned brandId as the useful output.

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 your connected-account brands (Social Brands)') and clarifies the concept by explaining that a brand groups connected social accounts. This helps separate it from the sibling list_brands, though it never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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 how the result is consumed: 'Use a brandId with list_social_accounts and create_social_post.' That is clear usage context for downstream calls, but it does not state when-not to use it or contrast against list_social_accounts/list_brands directly.

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