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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned status taxonomy and the 'how many upcoming posts a broken account is blocking' impact metric, which tells the agent what consequences the report surfaces. It omits freshness/live-check behavior, keeping it short of 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?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource before the status enumeration. The status list is dense but each item is informative; only minor tightening would improve it.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the blocking-count metric, which is enough to call it correctly. Thresholds (e.g., what counts as 'expiring soon') and data freshness are unstated but not blocking.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a shop-scoped, unfiltered snapshot rather than promising any filtering options.

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 ('Shows') and resource ('each social account connected to this Xyla shop'), then enumerates the exact status vocabulary returned. An agent can distinguish this health-report tool from mutating siblings like connect_account or change_settings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: the status list and 'blocking' count suggest it is a diagnostic check to run before publishing, but the description never says when to call it, whether it should be called before upcoming_posts or approve_posts, or what to do with the results. No alternatives are named.

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